<?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>2021 (6) TMI 882 - ITAT DEHRADUN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408986</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision allowing the assessee&#039;s claim of 100% deduction under section 80IC for substantial expansion in the 7th year. The ITAT determined that the initial assessment year could be re-fixed for substantial expansion, following the precedent set by the ITAT Delhi Bench. The ITAT emphasized that the deduction period could not exceed 10 years, in line with statutory provisions and judicial precedents. The Department&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s ruling.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Jun 2021 07:51:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=647890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (6) TMI 882 - ITAT DEHRADUN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408986</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision allowing the assessee&#039;s claim of 100% deduction under section 80IC for substantial expansion in the 7th year. The ITAT determined that the initial assessment year could be re-fixed for substantial expansion, following the precedent set by the ITAT Delhi Bench. The ITAT emphasized that the deduction period could not exceed 10 years, in line with statutory provisions and judicial precedents. The Department&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s ruling.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408986</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>