Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 4807 
Join Channel 
