Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
The High Court addressed the issue of reimbursement of...
High Court: Starting production before approval doesn't deny incentives under Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy. Order set aside, payments due in 3 months.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The High Court addressed the issue of reimbursement of VAT/ET/SGST under Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011. The petitioner's claim was rejected due to starting production before approval by SIPB. The Court held that starting production before approval does not justify denial of incentives. The impugned order was set aside, directing authorities to grant incentives from approval date and make payments within three months. The petition was allowed.
The High Court addressed the issue of reimbursement of VAT/ET/SGST under Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011. The petitioner's claim was rejected due to starting production before approval by SIPB. The Court held that starting production before approval does not justify denial of incentives. The impugned order was set aside, directing authorities to grant incentives from approval date and make payments within three months. The petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
