Income Tax : Supreme Court clarifies Section 80HHC deduction for Export-Oriented Units, emphasizing that profits eligible for deduction must be...
Income Tax : In the last quarter of the financial year 2000-0 1, a serious controversy arose in the Income-Tax Department and export circles of...
Income Tax : In the present case, according to the Finance Minister presenting the Bill, a valid piece of legislation has been wrongly interpre...
Income Tax : The High Court ruled that sales tax exemption retained by an industrial unit was capital in nature because it was granted to encou...
Income Tax : The Court held that losses already set off in earlier years cannot be notionally carried forward for computing deduction under Sec...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that at the relevant time co-founder of Flipkart stayed in India for 141 days and balance days in other countr...
Income Tax : The tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is invalid where the Assessing Officer has examined the issue and adopted a plau...
Income Tax : The Court held that reassessment based on a retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC is invalid. The key takeaway is that such ame...
The High Court ruled that sales tax exemption retained by an industrial unit was capital in nature because it was granted to encourage investment in backward areas. As a result, the subsidy could not be treated as taxable revenue.
The Court held that losses already set off in earlier years cannot be notionally carried forward for computing deduction under Section 80IA. The ruling follows binding precedent restricting retrospective reworking of absorbed losses.
ITAT Bangalore held that at the relevant time co-founder of Flipkart stayed in India for 141 days and balance days in other countries. Hence, assessee is an Indian national and thus the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
The tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is invalid where the Assessing Officer has examined the issue and adopted a plausible legal view. The PCIT cannot substitute his opinion merely because another interpretation is possible.
The Court held that reassessment based on a retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC is invalid. The key takeaway is that such amendments cannot reopen concluded assessments.
The court held that exporters cannot be denied Section 80HHC benefits merely for lack of a consolidated BRC. Consignment-wise bank certificates are sufficient if available on record.
The issue was whether deduction under section 80P could be allowed when the return was filed beyond the due date. The Tribunal held that non-compliance with section 80AC made the assessment erroneous, justifying revision under section 263.
The Tribunal held that DEPB income forms part of operating export income and cannot be excluded from turnover merely on a different view. Revision under section 263 was found unjustified where the original assessment involved due application of mind.
The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that reassessment was justified as the original order contained no reference to the deduction claim. Mere filing of computation does not bar reopening.
The court held that deductions under Sections 80-IA and 80-HHC can be claimed simultaneously, subject only to an overall cap of 100% of business profits.
