Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
