1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The High Court examined the issue of denial of operation and maintenance benefits u/s 26 of the SEZ Act for the intervening period from 01.04.2015 to 08.05.2016. It considered a similar case before the Delhi High Court in Moser Baer India Ltd. vs. Union of India, where the directions in the covering letter dated 06.04.2015 for re-demarcation of the processing area into a non-processing area were found contrary to the letter circulated under the same cover. The first letter dated 06.04.2015 restored the 2009 Guidelines, allowing power plants only in non-processing areas with fiscal benefits limited to initial setup. The second letter dated 06.04.2015 was held repugnant to the first. The impugned communication dated 06.04.2015, which demarcated captive power plants in processing areas as non-processing areas and denied operation and maintenance benefits earlier, was found arbitrary and invalid. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the petition was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
