<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (1) TMI 189 - ITAT DELHI-G</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65485</link>
    <description>An addition for alleged unrecorded silver sales was deleted because the same test report and reasoning had already been rejected in the assessee&#039;s own earlier year, with no new material to justify a different view; the principle of consistency was applied and the deletion was upheld. Excise duty refund relating to the Agartala unit was also treated as part of business profits for deduction under section 80-IB, because the duty was paid and refunded under the same statutory clearance mechanism and the accounting entries were neutral. The refund was therefore regarded as arising directly from the industrial undertaking, and the deduction was allowed without reducing that amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:03:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103924" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 189 - ITAT DELHI-G</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65485</link>
      <description>An addition for alleged unrecorded silver sales was deleted because the same test report and reasoning had already been rejected in the assessee&#039;s own earlier year, with no new material to justify a different view; the principle of consistency was applied and the deletion was upheld. Excise duty refund relating to the Agartala unit was also treated as part of business profits for deduction under section 80-IB, because the duty was paid and refunded under the same statutory clearance mechanism and the accounting entries were neutral. The refund was therefore regarded as arising directly from the industrial undertaking, and the deduction was allowed without reducing that amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65485</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>