https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373117 The delay in filing the appeal for AY 2013-14 was condoned due to genuine reasons. The claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act was disputed, with the Tribunal remanding the issue back to the AO for reconsideration based on legal precedents. The interpretation of judgments by the Karnataka High Court was pivotal in distinguishing between different sections of the Act. The consideration of the claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) for AY 2014-15 led to a reevaluation by the AO. The appeals were treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with directions given for a thorough reassessment by the AO in both assessment years. en-us Wed, 02 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jan 2019 12:24:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373117 The delay in filing the appeal for AY 2013-14 was condoned due to genuine reasons. The claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act was disputed, with the Tribunal remanding the issue back to the AO for reconsideration based on legal precedents. The interpretation of judgments by the Karnataka High Court was pivotal in distinguishing between different sections of the Act. The consideration of the claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) for AY 2014-15 led to a reevaluation by the AO. The appeals were treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with directions given for a thorough reassessment by the AO in both assessment years. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373117