<?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>2021 (12) TMI 1537 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465344</link>
    <description>Addition for alleged undisclosed production and sale based only on provisional Form H-1 figures was unsustainable because the books and stock records were not rejected and no corroborative evidence of clandestine production or sale was found; the addition was deleted. Depreciation on the beneficiation plant was allowable because the plant was installed for mining operations, ownership and business use remained with the assessee, and electricity use supported deployment. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted because the Assessing Officer had not first recorded objective dissatisfaction with the assessee&#039;s claim. Peripheral development expenses were partly allowed, with only non-business items sustained, and compensatory afforestation charge was remanded for fresh verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:09:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=872306" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (12) TMI 1537 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465344</link>
      <description>Addition for alleged undisclosed production and sale based only on provisional Form H-1 figures was unsustainable because the books and stock records were not rejected and no corroborative evidence of clandestine production or sale was found; the addition was deleted. Depreciation on the beneficiation plant was allowable because the plant was installed for mining operations, ownership and business use remained with the assessee, and electricity use supported deployment. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted because the Assessing Officer had not first recorded objective dissatisfaction with the assessee&#039;s claim. Peripheral development expenses were partly allowed, with only non-business items sustained, and compensatory afforestation charge was remanded for fresh verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465344</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>