<?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>2018 (1) TMI 842 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354106</link>
    <description>An industrial unit&#039;s eligibility for incentive deduction is determined on its own statutory facts: the Noida unit satisfied the SSI conditions for section 80IB, and buns were treated as bakery products rather than confectionery under the Eleventh Schedule. Reductions in section 80IC based on alleged inter-unit benefit and notional expenses were unwarranted because no evidence of transfer or specific defect in turnover-based allocation was shown, and job work profits remained eligible as industrial production. Interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was deleted where interest-free funds covered the advances. Common head office expense allocation on turnover basis was also accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:24:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 842 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354106</link>
      <description>An industrial unit&#039;s eligibility for incentive deduction is determined on its own statutory facts: the Noida unit satisfied the SSI conditions for section 80IB, and buns were treated as bakery products rather than confectionery under the Eleventh Schedule. Reductions in section 80IC based on alleged inter-unit benefit and notional expenses were unwarranted because no evidence of transfer or specific defect in turnover-based allocation was shown, and job work profits remained eligible as industrial production. Interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was deleted where interest-free funds covered the advances. Common head office expense allocation on turnover basis was also accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354106</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>