Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Concessional electricity charges under Clause 16(a) of the 2019 Industrial Policy were held to apply only to new industrial enterprises, while existing enterprises undertaking substantial expansion fell under Clause 16(b) and could claim only the rebate linked to incremental consumption. The 29.04.2022 amendment substituting "eligible" with "new" in Clause 16(a) and aligning Clause 16(b) with substantial expansion was treated as clarificatory and retrospective, except for the newly introduced three-year duration under Clause 16(b), which operated prospectively. The respondent therefore had no entitlement to Clause 16(a) concession, and promissory estoppel could not create a benefit beyond the Policy's true scope.
Concessional electricity charges under Clause 16(a) of the 2019 Industrial Policy were held to apply only to new industrial enterprises, while existing enterprises undertaking substantial expansion fell under Clause 16(b) and could claim only the rebate linked to incremental consumption. The 29.04.2022 amendment substituting "eligible" with "new" in Clause 16(a) and aligning Clause 16(b) with substantial expansion was treated as clarificatory and retrospective, except for the newly introduced three-year duration under Clause 16(b), which operated prospectively. The respondent therefore had no entitlement to Clause 16(a) concession, and promissory estoppel could not create a benefit beyond the Policy's true scope.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
