Tax authority's substitution of projected figures with actuals overturned; original acquisition valuation upheld; transfer pricing issues remitted for...
Beneficial owner held liable for differential customs duty; royalties added under Rule 10(1)(c); confiscation, penalties under s.111(m), s.114A, s.112...
ITAT held that deduction claimed u/s 80-IA(4) had been allowed by CIT(A) without adequate verification and merely by following the Settlement Commission's order for earlier years, which is under challenge before the HC. ITAT ruled that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80-IA(4) only for those projects that were subject matter of the Settlement Commission proceedings and continued in AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, subject to verification by the AO. Projects for which the assessee had suo motu withdrawn the claim before CIT(A) are to be disallowed. For all other projects, AO must independently examine contract terms and allow deduction only where they are similar to eligible projects. Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes and matters remanded to AO.
ITAT held that deduction claimed u/s 80-IA(4) had been allowed by CIT(A) without adequate verification and merely by following the Settlement Commission's order for earlier years, which is under challenge before the HC. ITAT ruled that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80-IA(4) only for those projects that were subject matter of the Settlement Commission proceedings and continued in AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, subject to verification by the AO. Projects for which the assessee had suo motu withdrawn the claim before CIT(A) are to be disallowed. For all other projects, AO must independently examine contract terms and allow deduction only where they are similar to eligible projects. Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes and matters remanded to AO.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.