Court held  that ;(i) AO  had no independent material in his hands while rejecting assessee’s claim for deduction under S. 80IC of the Act.  The Assessing Officer could not have gone beyond the observations rendered or findings recorded by the Central Excise Department as even in the show cause notice there is a reference only to the findings recorded by the Central Excise Department. (ii)Tribunal’s order explained the fact that the trading volume was minuscule and if it was prima facieobservation made by ITAT, a thorough exercise should have been done by the ITAT as to whether Assessing Officer was justified in denying the entire deduction as claimed by assessee. (iii).30 percent of the tax demand has already been paid / adjusted which sufficiently safeguards the interest of the Revenue and is in line with the CBDT circular imposing condition to pay 20 percent of the tax demand for stay of balance tax demand.  Hence, the assessee has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim order and Revenue has also been sufficiently protected. (WP. Nos 8241 to 8245 of 2018 dt. 06-04-2018)(AY. 2011-12, 2012-13 ,2014-15)