Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4301 to 4320 of 96456 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 4823 
Join Channel 
