Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner, having previously availed full excise exemption under Clause 5(a) as a new unit, cannot claim further exemption under Clause 5(b) for a subsequent substantial expansion within the ten-year period; an existing unit's expansion relief (triggered only for expansion of not less than 25% of fixed capital) is distinct from the full-investment benefit accorded to a new unit, and the two benefits cannot be compounded. The court rejected a promissory-estoppel plea, noting the petitioner received the notified benefit and that fiscal exemption notifications are to be strictly construed in favour of revenue; no interference was warranted.
The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner, having previously availed full excise exemption under Clause 5(a) as a new unit, cannot claim further exemption under Clause 5(b) for a subsequent substantial expansion within the ten-year period; an existing unit's expansion relief (triggered only for expansion of not less than 25% of fixed capital) is distinct from the full-investment benefit accorded to a new unit, and the two benefits cannot be compounded. The court rejected a promissory-estoppel plea, noting the petitioner received the notified benefit and that fiscal exemption notifications are to be strictly construed in favour of revenue; no interference was warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
