Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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.