Infrastructure facility: energy-efficient public lighting held integral to road projects, qualifying the operator as a developer and eligible for dedu...
Fourth Proviso to Section 153A: extended-period inquiry requires a reasonable, material-based satisfaction that escaped income likely exceeds the thre...
The High Court dealt with multiple MAT computation issues under Section 115JB, applying Apollo Tyres to hold that items not covered by Explanation 1, including foreign corporate tax and deferred revenue expenditure, could not be added back. It also accepted concurrent findings that state capital investment subsidy was a capital receipt, that expenditure on construction of a government-owned road was revenue in nature, and that wealth tax provision was not contemplated under the section. The appeal was admitted only on four issues: sales tax subsidy in book profit, provision for bad and doubtful debts, revenue from trial run production, and withdrawal from share premium account, to be heard with the connected appeal for the earlier year.
The High Court dealt with multiple MAT computation issues under Section 115JB, applying Apollo Tyres to hold that items not covered by Explanation 1, including foreign corporate tax and deferred revenue expenditure, could not be added back. It also accepted concurrent findings that state capital investment subsidy was a capital receipt, that expenditure on construction of a government-owned road was revenue in nature, and that wealth tax provision was not contemplated under the section. The appeal was admitted only on four issues: sales tax subsidy in book profit, provision for bad and doubtful debts, revenue from trial run production, and withdrawal from share premium account, to be heard with the connected appeal for the earlier year.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.