BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

29 results for “section 68”+ Section 801B(10)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai99Delhi29Rajkot22Ahmedabad17Indore14Hyderabad10Pune9Jaipur8Chandigarh6Bangalore6Chennai6Kolkata4Nagpur4Jodhpur3Amritsar2Raipur2Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 80I42Section 143(3)23Addition to Income19Section 115J18Section 92C17Section 10A16Deduction16Section 144C11Disallowance11Section 271(1)(c)

ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7719/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2007-08]

Section 22Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

section 801B(10) was restricted toRs.3, 19,714/-.” 4. On the aforesaid addition, penalty of Rs.2,30,58,990/- was imposed, which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee summarized

M/S. SHEELA FOADM (P) LTD.,,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 80G8
Transfer Pricing6
ITA 5902/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Sheela Foam (P.) Ltd., C-55, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi Tax, Circle-8(1), New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacs0189B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Ajay Vohra & Gaurav Jain, Advocates; Ms. Bhavita Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/08/1012 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2004-05 In Respect Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Order Dated 27.03.2009 Passed By The Assessing Officer Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1 )(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio. 1.1 That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Penalty Order Under Section 271(1 )(C) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab-Initio, In As Much As The Same Was Initiated On Issues For Which No Prima Facie Satisfaction, Qua Concealment/Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, Was Discernible From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Without Prejudice 2. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

801B was not suo-moto offered for disallowance by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. 2.3 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in holding that suo-moto surrender of excess claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act through a letter, during the course of assessment proceedings

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S UNITED HEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 193/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

801B of the Act which occur in Chapter VIA of the Act. He referred in particular to Section 80A(4) of the Act, which reads as under: '4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or in any provisions of this Chapter under

UNITED HEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 473/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

801B of the Act which occur in Chapter VIA of the Act. He referred in particular to Section 80A(4) of the Act, which reads as under: '4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or in any provisions of this Chapter under

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

ITA 6665/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupham Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 154Section 254Section 92C

68,39/-. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. DRP by way of filing objections who has confirmed the addition by dismissing the objection. Feeling aggrieved the taxpayer has come up before the tribunal by filing the present appeal. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. DEEPTI AGARWAL, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3609/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Deepti Agarwal, Circle-31(1), Room No. 1405, Prop M/S. Superior Fabrics, 14Th Floor, E-2, Block, Maharaja Lane, Civil Lines, Prataykshkar Bhawan, Dr. New Delhi Shyama Prasad, Mukherjee Civc Pan: Aampa0573C Centre, Jn Nehru Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 40Section 80I

801B or under section IOC, as the case may be, exceeds ten assessments. (7) The provisions contained in sub-section (5) and sub- sections (7) to (12) of section 80-1 A shall; so far as may be, apply to eligible undertaking or enterprise under this section. (8) For the purposes of this section

ACIT CIRCLE-15(1), NEW DELHI vs. LTC COMMERCIAL COMPANY PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7029/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

10 CCB, wherein it was mentioned that assessee is engaged in the integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains which is an eligible business u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act. 4. Ld. AO after discussing the provision of Section 80IB (11A) observed that, three conditions are required to be fulfilled for availing deduction and not only

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

68,40,374/- under section 80IA of the Act and allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. 29. Ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee reads as under: “3. That the assessing officer/ DRP erred on facts and in law in not considering and allowing deduction of Rs.77,81,08,987 claimed by the appellant under

JINDAL SAW LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4693/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

10,11,393/- Thus the AO has reduced the amount of business profits of the appellant in respect of the 108 unit by the amount of scrap sales of Rs. 4,90,87,775/- and other income by relying on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of LIBERTY INDIA V CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) which

JINDAL SAW LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 504/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

10,11,393/- Thus the AO has reduced the amount of business profits of the appellant in respect of the 108 unit by the amount of scrap sales of Rs. 4,90,87,775/- and other income by relying on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of LIBERTY INDIA V CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) which

DCIT CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI vs. JINDAL SAW LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4760/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

10,11,393/- Thus the AO has reduced the amount of business profits of the appellant in respect of the 108 unit by the amount of scrap sales of Rs. 4,90,87,775/- and other income by relying on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of LIBERTY INDIA V CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) which

M/S DABUR INDIA LTD.,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 3257/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92BSection 92C

801B & 801C of the Act, 1961? 7. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.” 5. Ground Nos. 1 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal which are co-related and Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the departmental appeal relate to the chargeability of the royalty from

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DABUR INDIA LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 3492/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92BSection 92C

801B & 801C of the Act, 1961? 7. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.” 5. Ground Nos. 1 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal which are co-related and Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the departmental appeal relate to the chargeability of the royalty from

ACIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose

ITA 8273/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiya

801B and 80IC of the Act. According to the AO, the Head Office expenses amounting to Rs.2214.02 lakhs were not allocated to the units. Further, according to the AO, depreciation to the tune of Rs. 704.49 lakhs on assets of the Head Office was not allocated to the units. Accordingly, the AO allocated the Head Office expenses and depreciation

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose

ITA 3791/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiya

801B and 80IC of the Act. According to the AO, the Head Office expenses amounting to Rs.2214.02 lakhs were not allocated to the units. Further, according to the AO, depreciation to the tune of Rs. 704.49 lakhs on assets of the Head Office was not allocated to the units. Accordingly, the AO allocated the Head Office expenses and depreciation

ACIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose

ITA 5272/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiya

801B and 80IC of the Act. According to the AO, the Head Office expenses amounting to Rs.2214.02 lakhs were not allocated to the units. Further, according to the AO, depreciation to the tune of Rs. 704.49 lakhs on assets of the Head Office was not allocated to the units. Accordingly, the AO allocated the Head Office expenses and depreciation

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose

ITA 4126/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiya

801B and 80IC of the Act. According to the AO, the Head Office expenses amounting to Rs.2214.02 lakhs were not allocated to the units. Further, according to the AO, depreciation to the tune of Rs. 704.49 lakhs on assets of the Head Office was not allocated to the units. Accordingly, the AO allocated the Head Office expenses and depreciation

DCIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose

ITA 4073/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiya

801B and 80IC of the Act. According to the AO, the Head Office expenses amounting to Rs.2214.02 lakhs were not allocated to the units. Further, according to the AO, depreciation to the tune of Rs. 704.49 lakhs on assets of the Head Office was not allocated to the units. Accordingly, the AO allocated the Head Office expenses and depreciation

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose

ITA 7775/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiya

801B and 80IC of the Act. According to the AO, the Head Office expenses amounting to Rs.2214.02 lakhs were not allocated to the units. Further, according to the AO, depreciation to the tune of Rs. 704.49 lakhs on assets of the Head Office was not allocated to the units. Accordingly, the AO allocated the Head Office expenses and depreciation

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

ITA 704/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidences under Rule 29 of ITAT:\n\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible