<?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>2010 (4) TMI 1097 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181378</link>
    <description>Deduction under section 10B was allowed where the assessee&#039;s unit was treated as a hundred per cent export oriented undertaking on the strength of Software Technology Park of India approval, supported by the CBDT instruction and administrative clarification relied upon by the assessee. The Tribunal also applied the rule of consistency because the same deduction had been accepted in scrutiny assessment for the immediately preceding year, with no change in facts or law and no showing of reopening or revision of that earlier order. On that basis, the Revenue was not permitted to take a different view in the year under appeal, and the deduction claim was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2023 13:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=423955" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 1097 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181378</link>
      <description>Deduction under section 10B was allowed where the assessee&#039;s unit was treated as a hundred per cent export oriented undertaking on the strength of Software Technology Park of India approval, supported by the CBDT instruction and administrative clarification relied upon by the assessee. The Tribunal also applied the rule of consistency because the same deduction had been accepted in scrutiny assessment for the immediately preceding year, with no change in facts or law and no showing of reopening or revision of that earlier order. On that basis, the Revenue was not permitted to take a different view in the year under appeal, and the deduction claim was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181378</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>