https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466255 Whether profits eligible for deduction under section 80-I must be reduced by investment deposits claimed under Section 32AB was considered; the court applied existing higher-court precedent holding that the investment deposit claim does not diminish the profits available for the incentive deduction, and therefore the appellant s contention was rejected. The tribunal s rejection was affirmed on the basis of the settled ratio in earlier superior-court decisions relied upon by the court. Consequence: the appeals were dismissed and the deduction computation stands without reduction for the investment deposit claim. en-us Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:32:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466255 Whether profits eligible for deduction under section 80-I must be reduced by investment deposits claimed under Section 32AB was considered; the court applied existing higher-court precedent holding that the investment deposit claim does not diminish the profits available for the incentive deduction, and therefore the appellant s contention was rejected. The tribunal s rejection was affirmed on the basis of the settled ratio in earlier superior-court decisions relied upon by the court. Consequence: the appeals were dismissed and the deduction computation stands without reduction for the investment deposit claim. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466255