Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
ITAT held that the foreign subsidiary incorporated under UAE law, notwithstanding 100% shareholding by the assessee, cannot be treated as the assessee's proprietorship and its income cannot be taxed as proprietary concern; the Tribunal consistently decided this issue in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld that electric fittings and installations constitute part of plant and machinery and allowed depreciation at 15% accordingly. Further, payments made to settle a patent infringement dispute were characterised as compensatory commercial expediency and not a penalty or expenditure for a purpose prohibited by law; the disallowance under s.37(1) was deleted and the assessee's related grounds were allowed.
ITAT held that the foreign subsidiary incorporated under UAE law, notwithstanding 100% shareholding by the assessee, cannot be treated as the assessee's proprietorship and its income cannot be taxed as proprietary concern; the Tribunal consistently decided this issue in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld that electric fittings and installations constitute part of plant and machinery and allowed depreciation at 15% accordingly. Further, payments made to settle a patent infringement dispute were characterised as compensatory commercial expediency and not a penalty or expenditure for a purpose prohibited by law; the disallowance under s.37(1) was deleted and the assessee's related grounds were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.