Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
961 to 980 of 96333 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.