{"id":19318,"date":"2021-06-17T15:09:33","date_gmt":"2021-06-17T09:39:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/dy-cit-v-wayne-burt-petrochemical-p-ltd-2021-186-itd-186-chennaitrib\/"},"modified":"2021-06-17T15:09:33","modified_gmt":"2021-06-17T09:39:33","slug":"dy-cit-v-wayne-burt-petrochemical-p-ltd-2021-186-itd-186-chennaitrib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/dy-cit-v-wayne-burt-petrochemical-p-ltd-2021-186-itd-186-chennaitrib\/","title":{"rendered":"Dy. CIT v. Wayne Burt Petrochemical (P.) Ltd. (2021) 186 ITD 186 (Chennai)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Tribunal remitted back to Assessing Officer for de novo consideration of alternative claim for deduction under section 10A of the Act.\u00a0 Pursuant to order of Tribunal, fresh assessment order was passed by Assessing Officer denying exemption under section 10B as well as section 10A on ground that prescribed Form No. 56FF as per Rule 16DD was not filed. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed claim for deduction under section 10B. Revenue contended that there were no positive profits available before making addition which could be claimed as deduction under section 10A or 10B\u00a0\u00a0 Allowing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that \u00a0since issue of allowability of claim under section 10B was neither alive nor it was permissible, as it amounted to overruling decision of Tribunal by Commissioner (Appeals), thus Commissioner (Appeals) was unjustified in directing Assessing Officer to allow claim for deduction of provision under section 10B. Order of CIT(A) was reversed. (AY. 2009-10)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 10B : Export oriented undertakings-Matter remanded  by the Tribunal to   the Assessing Officer examine the claim under section 10A of the Act-CIT (A) allowed the claim under section 10B-CIT (A) was not justified is allowing the deduction u\/s. 10A of the Act. [S.10A, 254 (1)]  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19318","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-51A","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19318","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19318"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19318\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19319,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19318\/revisions\/19319"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19318"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19318"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19318"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}