Composite GST notices, mandatory limitation, and same-subject bar: HC upheld valid notices but quashed overlapping proceedings and unauthorised withho...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3761 to 3780 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Assessee's claim for deduction under 80-IC was challenged on grounds that profits were overstated in the eligible unit while suppressed in the non-eligible unit. The tribunal rejected explanations based on excise duty and lower repair-and-maintenance, noting excise duty effects are offset by CENVAT credit and both units share management and similar input procurement and product quality; it accepted that lower R&M in the new unit is plausible but insufficient to explain the disparity. Tribunal found some profit suppression in the non-eligible unit, directed AO to apply a 5.83% net profit rate (average of relevant years) to recompute the 80-IC deduction and disallowed the remainder; appeal partly allowed.
Assessee's claim for deduction under 80-IC was challenged on grounds that profits were overstated in the eligible unit while suppressed in the non-eligible unit. The tribunal rejected explanations based on excise duty and lower repair-and-maintenance, noting excise duty effects are offset by CENVAT credit and both units share management and similar input procurement and product quality; it accepted that lower R&M in the new unit is plausible but insufficient to explain the disparity. Tribunal found some profit suppression in the non-eligible unit, directed AO to apply a 5.83% net profit rate (average of relevant years) to recompute the 80-IC deduction and disallowed the remainder; appeal partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
