Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
The petitioner sought release of an export subsidy of Rs. 8,08,50,000/-. The respondent confirmed that the milk powder exported by the petitioner, amounting to 1617 metric tonnes, was from stock existing on June 30, 2018, entitling the petitioner to receive the export subsidy under the government resolution dated July 31, 2018. The court observed that once a similarly placed party like Indapur received such subsidy, which is a state largesse, the principles of reasonableness and fairness emanating from Article 14 of the Constitution of India require the respondents to extend similar treatment to the petitioner, who was identically placed. Differential treatment would result in a breach of the petitioner's right to non-discrimination under Article 14. The subsidy scheme is a welfare scheme, fully implemented and acted upon in Indapur's case. The Supreme Court judgments relied upon by the respondents regarding negative equality are distinguishable as the court had directed the release of export subsidy to Indapur based on its legal entitlement, without any illegality involved. Consequently, the respondents were directed to release the export subsidy amount of Rs. 8,08,50,000/- to the petitioner within six weeks.
The petitioner sought release of an export subsidy of Rs. 8,08,50,000/-. The respondent confirmed that the milk powder exported by the petitioner, amounting to 1617 metric tonnes, was from stock existing on June 30, 2018, entitling the petitioner to receive the export subsidy under the government resolution dated July 31, 2018. The court observed that once a similarly placed party like Indapur received such subsidy, which is a state largesse, the principles of reasonableness and fairness emanating from Article 14 of the Constitution of India require the respondents to extend similar treatment to the petitioner, who was identically placed. Differential treatment would result in a breach of the petitioner's right to non-discrimination under Article 14. The subsidy scheme is a welfare scheme, fully implemented and acted upon in Indapur's case. The Supreme Court judgments relied upon by the respondents regarding negative equality are distinguishable as the court had directed the release of export subsidy to Indapur based on its legal entitlement, without any illegality involved. Consequently, the respondents were directed to release the export subsidy amount of Rs. 8,08,50,000/- to the petitioner within six weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
