https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376177 Subsidy eligibility under an incentive scheme was linked to proof of the prescribed capital investment threshold and to the scheme's object of supporting viable projects. The court noted that claimed investment based on financial lease assets was not fully verifiable, unpaid lease liabilities remained outstanding, and the asserted expenditure did not satisfy the net present value threshold. It also accepted that acute liquidity stress and the risk of diversion to creditors could justify refusal of disbursement where the scheme was meant to bridge a viability gap. On these facts, the subsidy claim was not established and the refusal to release funds was upheld. en-us Mon, 25 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Mar 2019 08:25:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376177 Subsidy eligibility under an incentive scheme was linked to proof of the prescribed capital investment threshold and to the scheme's object of supporting viable projects. The court noted that claimed investment based on financial lease assets was not fully verifiable, unpaid lease liabilities remained outstanding, and the asserted expenditure did not satisfy the net present value threshold. It also accepted that acute liquidity stress and the risk of diversion to creditors could justify refusal of disbursement where the scheme was meant to bridge a viability gap. On these facts, the subsidy claim was not established and the refusal to release funds was upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 25 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376177