https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172579 The High Court addressed two issues in the case: addition under section 40A(3) and computation of deduction under section 80HHC for the assessment year 1990-91. The Court upheld the addition under section 40A(3) as decided by the Tribunal. Regarding the deduction under section 80HHC, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the unabsorbed investment allowance should not be adjusted before allowing the deduction. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to grant the deduction based on the profits derived from exports without adjusting the unabsorbed investment allowance, partially allowing the appeal of the assessee. en-us Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:28:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172579 The High Court addressed two issues in the case: addition under section 40A(3) and computation of deduction under section 80HHC for the assessment year 1990-91. The Court upheld the addition under section 40A(3) as decided by the Tribunal. Regarding the deduction under section 80HHC, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the unabsorbed investment allowance should not be adjusted before allowing the deduction. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to grant the deduction based on the profits derived from exports without adjusting the unabsorbed investment allowance, partially allowing the appeal of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172579