Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
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.
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.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
