Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The ITAT Chennai ruled on deduction u/s 80IA, focusing on determining the market value of power supplied by the assessee to its industrial units. The AO argued for using rates fixed by Tariff Regulatory Commission, while the assessee supported using the average price of power purchased. The Supreme Court clarified that "market value" refers to the price in a free trade environment. It held that the market value should be based on the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplied power to consumers, not the rate sold to a supplier. The ITAT noted that the AO allowed the deduction for the initial year and subsequent years. The assessee used a price of ₹5.60 per unit based on charges paid to Tamilnadu Electricity Board. Ultimately, the ITAT held that the State Electricity Board's rate should be considered the market value for claiming deduction u/s 80IA, dismissing the Revenue's grounds.
The ITAT Chennai ruled on deduction u/s 80IA, focusing on determining the market value of power supplied by the assessee to its industrial units. The AO argued for using rates fixed by Tariff Regulatory Commission, while the assessee supported using the average price of power purchased. The Supreme Court clarified that "market value" refers to the price in a free trade environment. It held that the market value should be based on the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplied power to consumers, not the rate sold to a supplier. The ITAT noted that the AO allowed the deduction for the initial year and subsequent years. The assessee used a price of ₹5.60 per unit based on charges paid to Tamilnadu Electricity Board. Ultimately, the ITAT held that the State Electricity Board's rate should be considered the market value for claiming deduction u/s 80IA, dismissing the Revenue's grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
