Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
The Tribunal held that an unchallenged BIFR order disposing of MA No. 442/2011 attained finality, so the company could not reopen a claim for entry tax exemption after that proceeding ended. It further held that there was no deemed consent by the State to the rehabilitation scheme's tax concession clause because the State had expressly ? no, must be English. The State had expressly refused consent during objections to the draft scheme, so Clause 20 was not binding on it under SICA. The Tribunal also held that no relief could be founded on the invalid Central Government notification of 24 May 2017, and the NCLT correctly rejected the petition for exemption.
The Tribunal held that an unchallenged BIFR order disposing of MA No. 442/2011 attained finality, so the company could not reopen a claim for entry tax exemption after that proceeding ended. It further held that there was no deemed consent by the State to the rehabilitation scheme's tax concession clause because the State had expressly ? no, must be English. The State had expressly refused consent during objections to the draft scheme, so Clause 20 was not binding on it under SICA. The Tribunal also held that no relief could be founded on the invalid Central Government notification of 24 May 2017, and the NCLT correctly rejected the petition for exemption.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
