Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
ITAT principally agreed that the assessee-company could claim 100% deduction under Section 80IC after "substantial expansion," treating it as an "initial assessment year" per Aarham Softronics (SC). However, the Tribunal found that CIT(A) had improperly allowed the modified deduction without verifying whether the assessee had actually carried out "substantial expansion" as defined in Section 80IC(8)(ix) or satisfied other statutory pre-conditions. The fact that AO had allowed enhanced deduction in the preceding year supported the assessee's claim but did not justify dispensing with verification requirements. The matter was restored to CIT(A) for readjudication after proper verification of all pre-conditions. Revenue's appeal and assessee's cross-objection were allowed for statistical purposes.
ITAT principally agreed that the assessee-company could claim 100% deduction under Section 80IC after "substantial expansion," treating it as an "initial assessment year" per Aarham Softronics (SC). However, the Tribunal found that CIT(A) had improperly allowed the modified deduction without verifying whether the assessee had actually carried out "substantial expansion" as defined in Section 80IC(8)(ix) or satisfied other statutory pre-conditions. The fact that AO had allowed enhanced deduction in the preceding year supported the assessee's claim but did not justify dispensing with verification requirements. The matter was restored to CIT(A) for readjudication after proper verification of all pre-conditions. Revenue's appeal and assessee's cross-objection were allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
