Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Rajasthan High Court affirms tax incentives eligibility under Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme</h1> The Rajasthan High Court upheld the Tax Board's decision, confirming the respondent-assessee's eligibility for tax incentives under the Rajasthan Sales ... - Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for tax incentives under the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1989.2. Interpretation of 'expansion' and the conditions required for eligibility.3. Consideration of job-work production in determining eligibility.4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut.5. Legislative intent and object of the incentive scheme.Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Tax Incentives:The case revolves around the eligibility of the respondent-assessee for tax incentives under the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1989. The respondent-assessee, a manufacturer of stainless steel sheets, applied for an eligibility certificate as an expansion unit. The District Level Screening Committee (DLSC) rejected this application, which was later overturned by the Rajasthan Tax Board.2. Interpretation of 'Expansion' and Conditions for Eligibility:The Scheme of 1989 defines 'expansion' in clause 2(f) as an increase in the value of fixed capital investment by not less than 25% of the net fixed assets of the existing project, accompanied by an increase in production by at least 25% of the original licensed/registered capacity. Additionally, the unit must have achieved at least 85% of its licensed/registered capacity before expansion. The respondent-assessee met these conditions by increasing its fixed capital investment and achieving the required production levels.3. Consideration of Job-Work Production:A key issue was whether production through job-work could be included in the calculation of increased production. The DLSC held that job-work production should not be considered, while the Tax Board disagreed, stating that the scheme does not differentiate between production for the unit's own account and job-work. The Tax Board emphasized that the essential factor is the utilization of the unit's production capacity.4. Applicability of Supreme Court's Decision in Prestige Engineering:The Revenue argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut supported their stance. However, the court found that this case was not applicable as it dealt with specific provisions under the Central Excises and Salt Act, which are not present in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The court noted that the absence of an exclusion for job-work in the incentive scheme supported the respondent-assessee's eligibility.5. Legislative Intent and Object of the Incentive Scheme:The court highlighted that the primary objective of the incentive scheme is to promote economic growth and increased production in backward areas. The scheme aims to attract capital investment and ensure that units achieve and exceed their production capacities. The court found that the legislative intent did not impose a restriction on the type of production (own account vs. job-work) for eligibility.Conclusion:The Rajasthan High Court upheld the Tax Board's decision, affirming that the respondent-assessee met all the conditions for eligibility under the incentive scheme, including the consideration of job-work production. The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the Revenue, emphasizing that the legislative intent and the scheme's objectives were to promote increased production and economic growth without restricting the type of production. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found