<?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>2019 (7) TMI 2068 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463832</link>
    <description>ITAT MUMBAI - AT quashed revision under s.263 where CIT(LTU) had set aside AO&#039;s allowance of s.80IC deduction for a consumer-division unit. Tribunal held CIT(LTU) failed to demonstrate the AO&#039;s assessment was both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue as required for s.263. Noting AO had examined s.80IC issues and in light of SC authority permitting continuation of 100% exemption where substantial expansion is established, the revision order was held unsustainable and the assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 13:51:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=851412" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 2068 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463832</link>
      <description>ITAT MUMBAI - AT quashed revision under s.263 where CIT(LTU) had set aside AO&#039;s allowance of s.80IC deduction for a consumer-division unit. Tribunal held CIT(LTU) failed to demonstrate the AO&#039;s assessment was both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue as required for s.263. Noting AO had examined s.80IC issues and in light of SC authority permitting continuation of 100% exemption where substantial expansion is established, the revision order was held unsustainable and the assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463832</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>