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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
