Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge. The court held that to avail the Budgetary Support Scheme (BSS), the concerned unit must be located in the specified areas mentioned in the 2007 and 2017 notifications, producing specified goods cleared from the same units. The intent of the BSS pivoted around the geographical location of the unit, and the benefit was to accrue to those units for the residual period. Despite a change in name or acquisition of a new unit within Sikkim, there was no change in the geographical location of the units existing in Sikkim prior to the GST regime. The court observed that the appellants' anxiety regarding eligibility remained unaddressed, and no decision was taken by the DPIIT concerning their eligibility.
The High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge. The court held that to avail the Budgetary Support Scheme (BSS), the concerned unit must be located in the specified areas mentioned in the 2007 and 2017 notifications, producing specified goods cleared from the same units. The intent of the BSS pivoted around the geographical location of the unit, and the benefit was to accrue to those units for the residual period. Despite a change in name or acquisition of a new unit within Sikkim, there was no change in the geographical location of the units existing in Sikkim prior to the GST regime. The court observed that the appellants' anxiety regarding eligibility remained unaddressed, and no decision was taken by the DPIIT concerning their eligibility.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.