Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Depreciation was denied on conversion charges paid for change of land use because the expenditure related to land owned by another entity and did not create any independent depreciable asset in the assessee's hands; Explanation 1 to section 32 was held confined to capital expenditure on a building or work connected with a building, not land or rights in land. The alternative claim for revenue deduction and the related interest claim also failed because the assessee did not own the underlying asset and the business-purpose nexus required for section 36(1)(iii) was not established. Penalty was deleted under section 271(1)(c) since the claim was fully disclosed and debatable, with no concealment or inaccurate particulars.
Depreciation was denied on conversion charges paid for change of land use because the expenditure related to land owned by another entity and did not create any independent depreciable asset in the assessee's hands; Explanation 1 to section 32 was held confined to capital expenditure on a building or work connected with a building, not land or rights in land. The alternative claim for revenue deduction and the related interest claim also failed because the assessee did not own the underlying asset and the business-purpose nexus required for section 36(1)(iii) was not established. Penalty was deleted under section 271(1)(c) since the claim was fully disclosed and debatable, with no concealment or inaccurate particulars.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
