Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
The principal issue was whether the appellant's MM Plant qualified as a "new industrial unit" under the 1989 industrial policy rather than an expansion of an existing unit. Applying the policy's eligibility criteria for new units and noting the absence of cogent reasons to treat it as an expansion (including prior official classification as a new unit), the unit was held to be a new industrial unit, entitling it to incentives. The further issue was whether subsidies could be denied due to exhaustion of overall subsidy limits under earlier policies; this restriction was held applicable only to existing units seeking additional subsidy for expansion/modernisation/diversification, so rejection was unlawful. Based on clear representations and detrimental reliance, the State was held estopped from refusing disbursal; the HC order was set aside and subsidies directed. - SC
The principal issue was whether the appellant's MM Plant qualified as a "new industrial unit" under the 1989 industrial policy rather than an expansion of an existing unit. Applying the policy's eligibility criteria for new units and noting the absence of cogent reasons to treat it as an expansion (including prior official classification as a new unit), the unit was held to be a new industrial unit, entitling it to incentives. The further issue was whether subsidies could be denied due to exhaustion of overall subsidy limits under earlier policies; this restriction was held applicable only to existing units seeking additional subsidy for expansion/modernisation/diversification, so rejection was unlawful. Based on clear representations and detrimental reliance, the State was held estopped from refusing disbursal; the HC order was set aside and subsidies directed. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
