← All Phrases

“section 80IC”

DeductionsSection 80ICSection 80IC591 judgments

The decision most relied on for section 80IC is ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT (374 ITR 108), cited in 364 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on section 80IC

ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT
374 ITR 108 · 2015 · High Court
364
citing judgments

When computing disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act using Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, only investments that have actually yielded exempt income during the relevant previous year are to be considered for the calculation.

Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT
262 ITR 278 · 2003 · Supreme Court
353
citing judgments

Income eligible for deduction under Section 80IA or 80IC must have a direct nexus with the eligible business activity of the industrial undertaking. Income merely incidental to the business, even if part of the assessee's overall business, is not considered "derived from" the eligible undertaking.

CIT v. Sterling Foods
237 ITR 579 · 1999 · Supreme Court
311
citing judgments

Income eligible for profit-linked deductions under sections like 80-IC or 10B must have a direct nexus to the eligible business activity or be derived from the industrial undertaking itself, and not merely attributable to it or arising from a post-manufacturing event.

TM) Vishnu Jaiswal v. CIT
357 ITR 146 · 2013 · High Court
272
citing judgments

If the Assessing Officer has not conducted any investigation and thus has not discharged their burden of proof, any addition made by the AO is unsustainable and must be deleted.

CIT v. Ashwani Gupta
322 ITR 396 · 2010 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Proceedings become fatal if principles of natural justice are violated, such as when seized material is not provided to the assessee or cross-examination of a person whose statement the Assessing Officer relies upon is denied.

CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.
383 ITR 217 · 2016 · Supreme Court
203
citing judgments

Subsidies and excise duty refunds that are accounted for in the Profit and Loss account are revenue in nature, form part of business income, and are eligible for deductions under Section 80IB/80IC. Such receipts cannot be reduced from the block of assets for depreciation calculation.

Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
107 ITR 195 · 1977 · Supreme Court
165
citing judgments

A new industrial undertaking is not considered a reconstruction of an existing business for tax deduction purposes if it is a separate, independent production unit manufacturing commercially tangible products that can operate without losing its identity in the old business. The transfer and substantial use of assets and manpower from an old business to a new one may indicate reconstruction.

CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd.
317 ITR 249 · 2009 · High Court
140
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the return of income under section 80-IA(7) and similar provisions is directory, not mandatory. Such a report suffices if filed at any time before the assessment is framed.

Judgments citing section 80IC

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2733/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

treated as profit derived from the industrial undertaking. Mr. Bandhypadhyay submitted that it is not a profit derived from the undertaking. The benefit under section 80IC could not therefore have been granted. He also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India v. Commissioner

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2440/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

treated as profit derived from the industrial undertaking. Mr. Bandhypadhyay submitted that it is not a profit derived from the undertaking. The benefit under section 80IC could not therefore have been granted. He also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India v. Commissioner

DCIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jyothy Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 7280/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhacit-10(2)(1) Vs. M/S Jyothy Laboratories R. No. 216-A, Aayakar Ltd., Ujala House, Ram Bhavan, M.K. Road, Krishna Mandir Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl3167F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: J.D. Mistry, Priyanka Jain &For Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(29)(BA)Section 80I

case of Simple Food Products (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2017) 84 taxmann.com 239. 8. The point raised is that when the deductions under section 80IC as well as under section 80IB of the Act have been granted in the initial assessment years, the same could not be rejected ... preliminary point raised by the respondent assessee, the following factual position is relevant. In so far as the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80IC of the Act with respect to Uttranchal Unit is concerned, the first year of claim was Assessment Year 2009-10 and the instant year

Flex Art Foil Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC--4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 5847/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 69C

1 ITA Nos. 5846 & 5847/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Flex Art Foil Ltd. Vs.DCIT,CC-4(2) IN

Flex Art Foil Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Dd-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 5846/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 69C

1 ITA Nos. 5846 & 5847/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Flex Art Foil Ltd. Vs.DCIT,CC-4(2) IN

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7770/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Macleods Pharmaceuticals Central Circle-2(4), Limited, Room No. 802, Old Cgo Building, 8Th Vs. 304, Atlanta Arcade, Marol Church Floor, M.K. Road, Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aaacm 4100 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Macleods Pharmaceuticals Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax Central Circle-2(4), 304, Atlanta Arcade, Marol Church Vs. Room No. 802, Old Cgo Building, 8Th Road, Andheri (West) Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400059. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacm 4100 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ashok Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Dy CIT CC 2 (4), Mumbai vs. M/S Maccleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7612/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Macleods Pharmaceuticals Central Circle-2(4), Limited, Room No. 802, Old Cgo Building, 8Th Vs. 304, Atlanta Arcade, Marol Church Floor, M.K. Road, Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aaacm 4100 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Macleods Pharmaceuticals Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax Central Circle-2(4), 304, Atlanta Arcade, Marol Church Vs. Room No. 802, Old Cgo Building, 8Th Road, Andheri (West) Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400059. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacm 4100 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ashok Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1)(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Daffy Cosmetics Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 708/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: None
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

section 115JB. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee stating in detail how the assessee satisfies the conditions specified in section 80IC of the Act. However, the CIT(Appeals) did not pass a speaking order with respect to the applicability of section 115JB to the assessee

ACIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 884/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Glenmark Income Tax (Ltu)-1, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 29Th Floor, Center-1, Glenmark House, World Trade Center, Hdo Corporate Building, Cuffe Parade, Wing A, Mumbai – 400 005 Vs. B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakla, Opp. Western Express Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 099 Pan: Aaacg2207L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 16 . 02 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 04 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh: The Appellant, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Revenue’) By Filing The Present Appeal, Sought To Set Aside The Impugned Order Dated 22.11.2019 Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Qua The Assessment Year 2009-10 On The Grounds Inter Alia That :-

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, D.R
Section 115JSection 143Section 80CSection 80I

well as the Revenue on various issues including issue as to whether R&D expenses need to be allocated to unit claiming deduction under section 80IC of the Act. 3. This is second round of litigation as in the earlier round Tribunal has remanded the case back to Assessing Officer ... assessee, is to be allocated to the profits derived at/from the eligible industrial undertaking/independent unit at Baddi for calculating the deduction under section 80IC of the Act for the Baddi unit?” 8. Ld. D.R. for the Revenue challenging the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Charak Pharma P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, findings of the Ld

ITA 3602/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manish ShahFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 80Section 80I

appeals M/s. Charak Pharma Pvt. Ltd., was set up in the year 2005-06 and from the very inspection assessee is claiming deduction under section 80IC of the Act. The uncontroverted factual position on record demonstrates that assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IB/80IC in past years have been ... appeal: - 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance under section 80IC(7) r.w.s. 801A(8) without appreciating the fact that the disallowance was worked out by apportioning the net profit of eligible and no- eligible units

ACIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Charak Pharma P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, findings of the Ld

ITA 5545/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manish ShahFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 80Section 80I

appeals M/s. Charak Pharma Pvt. Ltd., was set up in the year 2005-06 and from the very inspection assessee is claiming deduction under section 80IC of the Act. The uncontroverted factual position on record demonstrates that assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IB/80IC in past years have been ... appeal: - 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance under section 80IC(7) r.w.s. 801A(8) without appreciating the fact that the disallowance was worked out by apportioning the net profit of eligible and no- eligible units

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Charak Pharma P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, findings of the Ld

ITA 6365/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manish ShahFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 80Section 80I

appeals M/s. Charak Pharma Pvt. Ltd., was set up in the year 2005-06 and from the very inspection assessee is claiming deduction under section 80IC of the Act. The uncontroverted factual position on record demonstrates that assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IB/80IC in past years have been ... appeal: - 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance under section 80IC(7) r.w.s. 801A(8) without appreciating the fact that the disallowance was worked out by apportioning the net profit of eligible and no- eligible units

Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1579/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegodrej Consumer Vs. Dcit, Cc-14(1)(1) Products Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Llp, Esplanade House, Mumbai-400020. 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg3365J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr & Mr.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To Directions Of The Drp.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat. CIT DR
Section 1Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 801CSection 80ISection 921

received, misc. income, sundry balance written back, etc., can be considered as part of the profits of the eligible unit for computing deduction under section 80IC of the Act. Notably, identical issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result additional ground raised by the assessee vide additional ground number 3 and ground number 5 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tata Chemicals Limited Tax 2(3), Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Respondent By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR
Section 41Section 80

treated as profit derived from the industrial undertaking. Mr. Bandhypadhyay submitted that it is not a profit derived from the undertaking. The benefit under section 80IC could not therefore have been granted. He also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India v. Commissioner

ADIT Infratel Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), New Delhi

In the result ground number 1-3 of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 289/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Adit Infratel Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-45/27, Dlf City, Phase-1, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon, Haryana-122002` New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcl6812B Assessee By : Ms. Manisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2022

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha Lahoti, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-President Dr. B

ACIT, Circle, Karnal vs. Zeiss Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Solan

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5514/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 80Section 80I

multiple “initial assessment years” within the exemption period of ten years, by completely overlooking the definition of “initial assessment year” as given in section 80IC(8)(v), which makes it amply clear that the initial assessment year could be reckoned with reference to only one of the given basis ... CBDT Circular No.7/2003 and the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2003, thereby leading to a perverse interpretation of the entire scheme and spirit of section 80IC. 6. Whether on facts and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing benefit of enhanced exemption to the assessee that is clearly

ACIT, Circle, Karnal vs. Zeiss Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Solan

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5513/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 80Section 80I

multiple “initial assessment years” within the exemption period of ten years, by completely overlooking the definition of “initial assessment year” as given in section 80IC(8)(v), which makes it amply clear that the initial assessment year could be reckoned with reference to only one of the given basis ... CBDT Circular No.7/2003 and the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2003, thereby leading to a perverse interpretation of the entire scheme and spirit of section 80IC. 6. Whether on facts and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing benefit of enhanced exemption to the assessee that is clearly

Sanjeev Dhawan, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 63(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2690/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sanjeev Dhawan Vs Income-Tax Officer, 10103/3, Pul Bangash, Azad Market, Ward 63(1), New Delhi. Delhi-110006 Pan- Aagpd4848M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Rajesh Gupta Ca Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2022

Section 80I

copy enclosed) which prescribes the various khasra nos. to be considered as industrial undertaking as per Section 80IC(2)(a) of the l.T.Act,1961 (copy attached).It is worthwhile to mention that the assessee is carrying on his manufacturing at Khasra No .3967 in the district of Dehradun which ... learned A.O has mentioned that the goods which are being manufactured by the assessee are not covered in any notification of Section 80IC(2)(a) of the l.T.Act,1961 or are not covered in the fourteenth schedule of Section 80IC(2)(a) of the Act. In respect of above

Imperial Auto Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5924/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA

Sudhir Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT -15, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 665/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

revenue and remanded the matter back to the AO to examine and verify evidences afresh especially with regard to quantum of deduction allowable under section 80IC of the Act. 7. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the claim of deduction on substantial expansion has been