https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759923 ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the case to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on Section 80IA(4) deduction eligibility, finding CIT(A)'s observations insufficient to determine if assessee qualified as developer versus contractor. The tribunal noted lack of crucial documents including tender agreements, PERT charts, and deployment details despite the appeal being pending for over 12 years. Regarding Section 14A disallowance, ITAT partially confirmed the addition under Rule 8D(2)(c) but remanded related issues. Section 35D preliminary expenses disallowance was also remanded due to CIT(A)'s failure to obtain remand report from AO, violating Rule 46A procedural requirements. en-us Fri, 19 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Oct 2024 16:22:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759923 ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the case to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on Section 80IA(4) deduction eligibility, finding CIT(A)'s observations insufficient to determine if assessee qualified as developer versus contractor. The tribunal noted lack of crucial documents including tender agreements, PERT charts, and deployment details despite the appeal being pending for over 12 years. Regarding Section 14A disallowance, ITAT partially confirmed the addition under Rule 8D(2)(c) but remanded related issues. Section 35D preliminary expenses disallowance was also remanded due to CIT(A)'s failure to obtain remand report from AO, violating Rule 46A procedural requirements. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759923