Assessee filed its return of income claiming deduction under section 80IC for its Unit IV, which was 7th year of such a claim and 2nd year after substantial expansion on 13-11-2012.\u00a0 Assessing Officer granted 100 per cent deduction under section 80IC of the Act. PCIT\u00a0 held that the assessee had not filed Form 10CCB in support of its claim and was thus only entitled to 30 per cent deduction and Assessing Officer had allowed excess depreciation, hence, assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. Tribunal\u00a0 dismissed\u00a0 the appeal. On appeal the Court held that\u00a0 year under consideration was second year of substantial expansion and for first year of substantial expansion namely for assessment year 2012-13, claim made by assessee for deduction at 100 per cent was accepted by Assessing Officer after conducting a detailed enquiry and examining all documents which were produced by assessee. The Court held that\u00a0 as long as benefit granted under section 80-IC for first year of substantial expansion remained unaltered, Assessing Officer would have no jurisdiction to revisit same issue in subsequent assessment years.\u00a0 Tribunal also held that\u00a0 the assessee had filed copy of Form 10CCB before Principal Commissioner in response to show cause notice issued under section 263 which Principal Commissioner had not considered. Order of Tribunal is set aside.\u00a0 (AY. 2013-14)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Special category states-Form no 10CCB was filed in response to show cause notice-First year of substantial expansion remained unaltered-Commissioner has no jurisdiction to revisit same issue in subsequent assessment years-Order of the Tribunal affirming the revision order is set aside. [S.80IC] <\/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-39550","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-ahU","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39550","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=39550"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39550\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39647,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39550\/revisions\/39647"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39550"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39550"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39550"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}