Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS. 157(PB) AND 172(PB) OF 2002, DECIDED ON 16TH DECEMBER, 2003. versus I.T.AS. NOS. 157(PB) AND 172(PB) OF 2002, DECIDED ON 16TH DECEMBER, 2003.

Second Schedule, Part I, CL (118C) and Section 156 Section RO 857 (I) / 88, dated 26 1988 1988 Assessment of exemption by mistake Assisi argued that production trial production and evaluation during 1993, 1994 The 95th was the first year of the exemption because in the assessment year 1993 there was no commercial production of 94 and there was 113 days of production trial production and the assing officer made a mistake in the estimation year 1999 and was exempted from the 7th year of tax exemption. Was allocated as The commercial production started on 11 11 1992 which was related to the assessment year from 1994 to 95, whereas the assessment year was made according to the year 1994 95 when the commercial production started on 11 11 1992. The second year exemption waiver in the Assessment Order for assessment year 1994 95 was a mistake based on which the 8 year waiver could not be reduced by incorrect comment in the assessment year 1994 95, this was the second year of the waiver and its In the year of such fault diagnosis, the assessment year 2000 2000 should be corrected when the product was marketed then the product should be considered as commercial production. The entire crushing season of 113 days was produced and the product was marketed. The assessment year 1993 was 94 94, when the trial production was found to be wrong then its correction application was filed on 16 8 2001, while the assessment The claim for filing the alleged correction for the year 1994 95 was filed on 8th 2001 2001 but it was not factual nor a subsequent correction application, which was established from 16th 2001 and Neither the order issued by the Assessing Officer nor i in the order of dismissal, otherwise this fact must have been mentioned in the application for assessment year 1999 2000 onwards. immigration advocate from Hyderabad lawyer