<?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>2012 (8) TMI 1047 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185602</link>
    <description>The Hon&#039;ble Supreme Court settled the issue of DEPB benefits assessment in the case of Topman Exports Vs. CIT, directing fresh consideration by the AO. The Tribunal upheld additions on underpriced sales to sister concerns and in the carton business due to lack of convincing explanations. The claim of deduction u/s 80IB was remanded for review. The rejection of an enhanced deduction u/s 80HHC was affirmed, citing precedent. The validity of interest charging u/s 234D was resolved in line with Kerala HC decision. Set off of losses and computation of indirect costs were also addressed. The judgment partially favored the assessee and was pronounced on 10-08-2012.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Aug 2016 17:53:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=438787" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 1047 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185602</link>
      <description>The Hon&#039;ble Supreme Court settled the issue of DEPB benefits assessment in the case of Topman Exports Vs. CIT, directing fresh consideration by the AO. The Tribunal upheld additions on underpriced sales to sister concerns and in the carton business due to lack of convincing explanations. The claim of deduction u/s 80IB was remanded for review. The rejection of an enhanced deduction u/s 80HHC was affirmed, citing precedent. The validity of interest charging u/s 234D was resolved in line with Kerala HC decision. Set off of losses and computation of indirect costs were also addressed. The judgment partially favored the assessee and was pronounced on 10-08-2012.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185602</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>