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
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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>Court rules in favor of petitioner, emphasizes timely receipt of machines & investment. Beneficial provisions interpreted leniently. Exemption granted.</h1> <h3>Ganpati Sangamarmar Pvt. Ltd. Versus District Level Screening Committee (Ajmer), Commissioner Commercial Taxes Officer, Jaipur</h3> The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the timely receipt of machines and overall investment in industrial unit development. The judgment ... Grant of eligibility certificate - project report - delay in receiving machinery - Held that: - once the assessee has brought to the notice of the DLSC that certain machines are to be installed in the Industrial Unit and in case machines are received later, there would be a good reason for allowing benefits and such beneficial provisions should not be taken in such a technical manner as has been taken not only by the DLSC but also by the Tax Board. The assessee applied for developing of the area and brought Plant & Machinery with latest technology to develop the industrial area with benefits to all and merely because the application was made after a period of more than six months, in my view, is no reason to reject the claim particularly when both the machines were received within a period of six months from moving the application. In my view even slight delay should have been condoned by the DLSC as well as by the Tax Board - the benefit has to be extended to the two machines which was received later but were found to be part of the project report - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner-assessee. Issues:1. Eligibility for exemption of purchase of two machines under Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987.2. Time limit for claiming benefits under the scheme.Analysis:Issue 1: Eligibility for exemption of purchase of two machines under Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987The petitioner, an Industrial Unit, applied for an eligibility certificate under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987. The application included details of eligible fixed capital investment (FCI) and various machines to be installed in the unit. The District Level Screening Committee (DLSC) initially excluded two machines from the eligibility certificate but later rejected the petitioner's claim for including them. The Tax Board also upheld the rejection. The petitioner argued that the machines were integral to the project, mentioned in the project report, and received within six months of the application. The court noted that the machines were received within six months of the application, and the delay in applying for their inclusion should not be a reason for rejection. The court emphasized the importance of the petitioner's investment in developing the industrial area and extended the benefit of exemption for the two machines.Issue 2: Time limit for claiming benefits under the schemeThe counsel for the revenue contended that the supplementary application for the two machines was filed almost a year later, beyond the prescribed period of 180 days, leading to the rejection by DLSC and the Tax Board. The court acknowledged the time limit but highlighted that the machines were received within six months of the original application and before the expiry of the eligibility certificate issued by DLSC. The court opined that the delay in filing the supplementary application should have been condoned, considering the timely receipt of the machines and the overall investment by the petitioner. The court referred to a previous judgment to support its decision. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashing the orders of the Tax Board and DLSC.In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of considering the timely receipt of machines and the overall investment made by the petitioner in the industrial unit development. The judgment highlighted the need to interpret beneficial provisions leniently and not to reject claims based on technicalities, especially when the essence of the project report was maintained.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found