https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334431 Revision under section 263 was held unsustainable where the Assessing Officer had examined the contract terms and adopted one of two plausible views that the assessee acted as a developer of infrastructure, not a mere works contractor; the assessee therefore succeeded on the revision issue. On the same reasoning, deduction under section 80-IA was held allowable for later years because the agreements involved development, commissioning and maintenance of infrastructure with entrepreneurial risk, so the Revenue failed. The business-loss claim was remanded for fresh verification of supporting evidence. Employees' contribution to provident fund, paid after the prescribed due date, remained disallowable because the statutory condition for deduction was not met. en-us Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Nov 2016 11:20:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334431 Revision under section 263 was held unsustainable where the Assessing Officer had examined the contract terms and adopted one of two plausible views that the assessee acted as a developer of infrastructure, not a mere works contractor; the assessee therefore succeeded on the revision issue. On the same reasoning, deduction under section 80-IA was held allowable for later years because the agreements involved development, commissioning and maintenance of infrastructure with entrepreneurial risk, so the Revenue failed. The business-loss claim was remanded for fresh verification of supporting evidence. Employees' contribution to provident fund, paid after the prescribed due date, remained disallowable because the statutory condition for deduction was not met. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334431