https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96955 Assessee's claim for deduction under 80-IC was challenged on grounds that profits were overstated in the eligible unit while suppressed in the non-eligible unit. The tribunal rejected explanations based on excise duty and lower repair-and-maintenance, noting excise duty effects are offset by CENVAT credit and both units share management and similar input procurement and product quality; it accepted that lower R&M in the new unit is plausible but insufficient to explain the disparity. Tribunal found some profit suppression in the non-eligible unit, directed AO to apply a 5.83% net profit rate (average of relevant years) to recompute the 80-IC deduction and disallowed the remainder; appeal partly allowed. en-us Tue, 17 Feb 2026 10:13:12 +0530 Tue, 17 Feb 2026 10:13:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96955 Assessee's claim for deduction under 80-IC was challenged on grounds that profits were overstated in the eligible unit while suppressed in the non-eligible unit. The tribunal rejected explanations based on excise duty and lower repair-and-maintenance, noting excise duty effects are offset by CENVAT credit and both units share management and similar input procurement and product quality; it accepted that lower R&M in the new unit is plausible but insufficient to explain the disparity. Tribunal found some profit suppression in the non-eligible unit, directed AO to apply a 5.83% net profit rate (average of relevant years) to recompute the 80-IC deduction and disallowed the remainder; appeal partly allowed. Highlights Income Tax Tue, 17 Feb 2026 10:13:12 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96955