https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358636 Deduction under Section 80IA was denied because the assessee was only a contractor performing maintenance for a fee and was neither the owner nor operator of the power plant; the activity therefore did not qualify as the specified undertaking intended to encourage investment in that sector. Interference under Section 260A was also declined because the Assessing Officer, first appellate authority and Tribunal had reached concurrent factual findings on the agreement, shareholding pattern and financial records, and no perversity was shown. The High Court upheld the denial of deduction and refused to reappreciate the evidence. en-us Wed, 04 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Apr 2018 06:09:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358636 Deduction under Section 80IA was denied because the assessee was only a contractor performing maintenance for a fee and was neither the owner nor operator of the power plant; the activity therefore did not qualify as the specified undertaking intended to encourage investment in that sector. Interference under Section 260A was also declined because the Assessing Officer, first appellate authority and Tribunal had reached concurrent factual findings on the agreement, shareholding pattern and financial records, and no perversity was shown. The High Court upheld the denial of deduction and refused to reappreciate the evidence. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358636