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...
Binding coordinate Bench orders in the assessee's own case had already directed grant of approval for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) from assessment year 2018-19 onwards, and that earlier determination could not be displaced by a later administrative error. The Commissioner (Exemptions) had incorrectly recorded that sections 11 and 12 applied, but the Tribunal held that this mistake did not override the prior directions. The Revenue's argument that the application date confined relief to assessment year 2019-20 was rejected because judicial discipline required following the earlier view on entitlement for assessment year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer was directed to give effect to exemption under section 10(23C)(vi).
Binding coordinate Bench orders in the assessee's own case had already directed grant of approval for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) from assessment year 2018-19 onwards, and that earlier determination could not be displaced by a later administrative error. The Commissioner (Exemptions) had incorrectly recorded that sections 11 and 12 applied, but the Tribunal held that this mistake did not override the prior directions. The Revenue's argument that the application date confined relief to assessment year 2019-20 was rejected because judicial discipline required following the earlier view on entitlement for assessment year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer was directed to give effect to exemption under section 10(23C)(vi).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.