https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469054 Deduction under section 10AA for SEZ activities was upheld because the same claim had been decided in the assessee's favour in earlier years and that view had been upheld by the High Court. For AY 2010-11, bogus purchases were found unproved despite banking-channel payments, so only the embedded profit element was taxed; the estimate was reduced to 6.5% as 11% was excessive. Proportionate disallowance of directors' remuneration was maintained because the issue had already been decided against the assessee in an earlier year. For AY 2011-12, the addition for alleged bogus purchases was deleted for want of corroborative material, and that deletion was upheld. en-us Wed, 10 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jun 2026 17:34:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469054 Deduction under section 10AA for SEZ activities was upheld because the same claim had been decided in the assessee's favour in earlier years and that view had been upheld by the High Court. For AY 2010-11, bogus purchases were found unproved despite banking-channel payments, so only the embedded profit element was taxed; the estimate was reduced to 6.5% as 11% was excessive. Proportionate disallowance of directors' remuneration was maintained because the issue had already been decided against the assessee in an earlier year. For AY 2011-12, the addition for alleged bogus purchases was deleted for want of corroborative material, and that deletion was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469054