https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212628 The court dismissed the writ petitions, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to benefits under the 2002 Scheme as it had ended on 31st March 2006, and the petitioner did not meet the requirements of the 2008 Scheme. The retrospective application of the 2008 Scheme was upheld to confer benefits on eligible undertakings. The plea of promissory estoppel was rejected due to the absence of a promise or assurance from the respondents. The petitioner was allowed to appeal against the assessment order but could not challenge the validity of the rejection letters. en-us Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212628 The court dismissed the writ petitions, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to benefits under the 2002 Scheme as it had ended on 31st March 2006, and the petitioner did not meet the requirements of the 2008 Scheme. The retrospective application of the 2008 Scheme was upheld to confer benefits on eligible undertakings. The plea of promissory estoppel was rejected due to the absence of a promise or assurance from the respondents. The petitioner was allowed to appeal against the assessment order but could not challenge the validity of the rejection letters. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212628