Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Depreciation at the higher rate for life-saving medical equipment was denied where the assessee's operation theatre, air pipeline system, anaesthesia trolley system and stabilizer were not specifically listed in the depreciation table and were not remotely identical to the notified equipment. On that basis, allowance of depreciation at 40% was treated as a mistake apparent from the record, and rectification under section 154 was upheld. The Tribunal sustained restriction of depreciation to 15% and rejected reliance on the cited High Court ruling because that case involved equipment found identical to the specified machinery, which was not the position here.
Depreciation at the higher rate for life-saving medical equipment was denied where the assessee's operation theatre, air pipeline system, anaesthesia trolley system and stabilizer were not specifically listed in the depreciation table and were not remotely identical to the notified equipment. On that basis, allowance of depreciation at 40% was treated as a mistake apparent from the record, and rectification under section 154 was upheld. The Tribunal sustained restriction of depreciation to 15% and rejected reliance on the cited High Court ruling because that case involved equipment found identical to the specified machinery, which was not the position here.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
