Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an assessee who had been granted a five-year tax holiday under an earlier exemption notification could be denied the benefit for the unexpired period because of a later amendment and a subsequent notification issued prospectively.
Analysis: The exemption under the earlier notification was granted specifically to newly set up industries and created an enforceable entitlement for the promised period. The later amendment and the notification issued pursuant to it were prospective in operation and were framed in a different, more general setting. The later notification was not expressed to be in supersession of the earlier one, and the earlier concession could not be curtailed for the balance period merely because the statutory provision was amended. The principle of promissory estoppel and the vested nature of the exemption were relied upon only to the extent necessary to hold that the accrued benefit could not be withdrawn midstream.
Conclusion: The subsequent amendment and notification did not affect the assessee's entitlement to the unexpired portion of the tax holiday.
Ratio Decidendi: A tax exemption granted by a special notification for a fixed period creates a vested entitlement for that period, and a later prospective amendment or general notification cannot curtail the unexpired benefit unless the earlier concession is expressly withdrawn or superseded.