https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312489 ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of assessee on multiple issues. Court held that CIT's revision u/s 263 for withdrawal of 80IC deduction was invalid since non-submission of Form 10CCB and non-verification of product eligibility were not valid grounds, especially when deduction was allowed for previous years. Regarding manufacturing classification, ITAT found that DGX and pillar filler products were automobile components with specific usage, not generic plastic products covered in negative list of Schedule XIII. Royalty payments to German company were allowed as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) following previous years' treatment. On gross profit rate difference issue, CIT(A)'s direction for further AO enquiry was upheld. Cross objection by assessee was allowed. en-us Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Feb 2024 05:51:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312489 ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of assessee on multiple issues. Court held that CIT's revision u/s 263 for withdrawal of 80IC deduction was invalid since non-submission of Form 10CCB and non-verification of product eligibility were not valid grounds, especially when deduction was allowed for previous years. Regarding manufacturing classification, ITAT found that DGX and pillar filler products were automobile components with specific usage, not generic plastic products covered in negative list of Schedule XIII. Royalty payments to German company were allowed as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) following previous years' treatment. On gross profit rate difference issue, CIT(A)'s direction for further AO enquiry was upheld. Cross objection by assessee was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312489