<?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>2011 (3) TMI 696 - ITAT, PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207093</link>
    <description>Eligibility for deduction under section 80-IB must be satisfied in the relevant previous year, and prior allowance does not preserve the claim if the undertaking no longer qualifies as a small scale industrial undertaking; the deduction was therefore disallowed. Cash payments to transporters above the prescribed limit attracted section 40A(3) disallowance, which was sustained. Replacement of a machine part in the course of business, without any enduring advantage or expansion of capacity, was treated as revenue expenditure. Disallowance under section 40A(ia) on transport payments was deleted in line with the coordinate bench view. The interest disallowance issue under section 36(1)(iii) was remanded for fresh adjudication because the substantive challenge had not been decided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Dec 2011 02:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180574" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 696 - ITAT, PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207093</link>
      <description>Eligibility for deduction under section 80-IB must be satisfied in the relevant previous year, and prior allowance does not preserve the claim if the undertaking no longer qualifies as a small scale industrial undertaking; the deduction was therefore disallowed. Cash payments to transporters above the prescribed limit attracted section 40A(3) disallowance, which was sustained. Replacement of a machine part in the course of business, without any enduring advantage or expansion of capacity, was treated as revenue expenditure. Disallowance under section 40A(ia) on transport payments was deleted in line with the coordinate bench view. The interest disallowance issue under section 36(1)(iii) was remanded for fresh adjudication because the substantive challenge had not been decided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>