https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248670 Concurrent factual findings that development and environmental expenses, meter replacement costs, and head office expenses were incurred in the course of business did not raise a substantial question of law, and those findings were left undisturbed. The Section 80IA deduction dispute over the purchase price from Tata Power Company also raised no substantial question of law because the Tribunal had already examined the computation, the proviso and explanation, and the accepted market-rate basis from earlier years. The Section 14A disallowance issue under Rule 8D likewise involved recomputation on remand and was governed by settled precedent that Rule 8D was not retrospective. The Revenue's challenge was rejected in full. en-us Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248670 Concurrent factual findings that development and environmental expenses, meter replacement costs, and head office expenses were incurred in the course of business did not raise a substantial question of law, and those findings were left undisturbed. The Section 80IA deduction dispute over the purchase price from Tata Power Company also raised no substantial question of law because the Tribunal had already examined the computation, the proviso and explanation, and the accepted market-rate basis from earlier years. The Section 14A disallowance issue under Rule 8D likewise involved recomputation on remand and was governed by settled precedent that Rule 8D was not retrospective. The Revenue's challenge was rejected in full. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248670