https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253530 The Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for exemption under section 10B as it did not meet the conditions, particularly regarding direct supervision of manufacturing activities. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's claim of Rule 46A violation, disallowing consultancy charges and addition of deferred expenditure. It upheld the annulment of assessment under section 143(1) vs. section 143(3), disallowance of interest on FDRs under section 10B, and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS. The Tribunal also upheld disallowance of balance claim of insurance, disallowance under section 14A, and found the assessment under section 144 invalid due to lack of compliance. en-us Fri, 21 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2014 06:33:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253530 The Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for exemption under section 10B as it did not meet the conditions, particularly regarding direct supervision of manufacturing activities. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's claim of Rule 46A violation, disallowing consultancy charges and addition of deferred expenditure. It upheld the annulment of assessment under section 143(1) vs. section 143(3), disallowance of interest on FDRs under section 10B, and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS. The Tribunal also upheld disallowance of balance claim of insurance, disallowance under section 14A, and found the assessment under section 144 invalid due to lack of compliance. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253530