Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4809 
Join Channel 
