https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83031 The issue pertained to determining the commencement date of business operations for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 35D of the Act for preliminary expenses incurred prior to the commencement of business. The assessee had deducted provident fund from June 2008 onwards, indicating the commencement of business operations from that date. The Assessing Officer, however, contended that the business commenced only upon acquisition of the equity research unit under a slump sale agreement. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, and the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s finding, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The critical issue was the determination of the appropriate commencement date for claiming deduction u/s 35D, with the ITAT accepting the assessee's claim based on the evidence presented. en-us Tue, 12 Nov 2024 08:52:50 +0530 Tue, 12 Nov 2024 08:52:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83031 The issue pertained to determining the commencement date of business operations for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 35D of the Act for preliminary expenses incurred prior to the commencement of business. The assessee had deducted provident fund from June 2008 onwards, indicating the commencement of business operations from that date. The Assessing Officer, however, contended that the business commenced only upon acquisition of the equity research unit under a slump sale agreement. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, and the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s finding, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The critical issue was the determination of the appropriate commencement date for claiming deduction u/s 35D, with the ITAT accepting the assessee's claim based on the evidence presented. Highlights Income Tax Tue, 12 Nov 2024 08:52:50 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83031