Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95954 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case concerns the retrospective nature of an amendment to u/s 32(1)(ii) by the Finance Act, 2015, relating to additional depreciation on plant or machinery. The Tribunal held that the correct approach is to interpret the unamended law to determine if the subsequent amendment is clarificatory. Legal precedents, such as CWT v. B.R. Theatres & Indl. Concerns P. Ltd., establish that a retrospective effect is warranted if the unamended provision can be construed in line with the amendment's intent. The legislative intent of providing additional depreciation under s. 32(1)(iia) is to boost the industry, subject to conditions like asset usage for over 180 days. The amendment rectifies restrictions on additional depreciation, removing discrimination between assessees based on asset usage days. The qualifying conditions for additional depreciation were met in the relevant year, supporting the assessee's claim.
The case concerns the retrospective nature of an amendment to u/s 32(1)(ii) by the Finance Act, 2015, relating to additional depreciation on plant or machinery. The Tribunal held that the correct approach is to interpret the unamended law to determine if the subsequent amendment is clarificatory. Legal precedents, such as CWT v. B.R. Theatres & Indl. Concerns P. Ltd., establish that a retrospective effect is warranted if the unamended provision can be construed in line with the amendment's intent. The legislative intent of providing additional depreciation under s. 32(1)(iia) is to boost the industry, subject to conditions like asset usage for over 180 days. The amendment rectifies restrictions on additional depreciation, removing discrimination between assessees based on asset usage days. The qualifying conditions for additional depreciation were met in the relevant year, supporting the assessee's claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
