<?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>2001 (7) TMI 109 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14055</link>
    <description>Failure to enclose the audit report with the return was held not to bar deduction under s. 80HH where the audit report is furnished before completion of assessment/reassessment; since the audit report was filed before conclusion of the relevant proceedings, the assessee remained entitled to the deduction. Exemption under s. 54D was wrongly denied on the premise that the new unit was a reconstruction funded by diversion of capital; on facts, the new unit was established on leased land with new machinery and no transfer of machinery occurred, and the Tribunal&#039;s finding that the new units were independent and newly set up was not perverse and could not be interfered with, resulting in allowance of s. 54D relief and decision in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2025 19:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53055" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 109 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14055</link>
      <description>Failure to enclose the audit report with the return was held not to bar deduction under s. 80HH where the audit report is furnished before completion of assessment/reassessment; since the audit report was filed before conclusion of the relevant proceedings, the assessee remained entitled to the deduction. Exemption under s. 54D was wrongly denied on the premise that the new unit was a reconstruction funded by diversion of capital; on facts, the new unit was established on leased land with new machinery and no transfer of machinery occurred, and the Tribunal&#039;s finding that the new units were independent and newly set up was not perverse and could not be interfered with, resulting in allowance of s. 54D relief and decision in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14055</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>