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 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.