Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 
