https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778697 ITAT MUMBAI held that the PCIT's revision under s.263 disallowing excess Section 80IC deduction (assessee claimed 100% for consumer-division in sixth year instead of permissible 30%) was quashed by the Tribunal, and consequently the Assessing Officer's subsequent order under s.143(3) r.w.s.263, which implemented the PCIT revision, also did not survive. The Tribunal affirmed Ld. CIT(A)'s conclusion that the order passed under s.143(3) r.w.s.263 must be quashed as it stood on the now-invalidated s.263 revision. en-us Mon, 15 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Sep 2025 08:38:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778697 ITAT MUMBAI held that the PCIT's revision under s.263 disallowing excess Section 80IC deduction (assessee claimed 100% for consumer-division in sixth year instead of permissible 30%) was quashed by the Tribunal, and consequently the Assessing Officer's subsequent order under s.143(3) r.w.s.263, which implemented the PCIT revision, also did not survive. The Tribunal affirmed Ld. CIT(A)'s conclusion that the order passed under s.143(3) r.w.s.263 must be quashed as it stood on the now-invalidated s.263 revision. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 15 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778697