Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.50 seconds)
M/S Pioneer Foods And Agro Industries vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 18(3)(4) And ... on 22 April, 2019
cites
M/S Liberty India vs Commr.Of Income Tax,Karnal on 31 August, 2009
This is
not a case akin to export incentives such as DEPB which the
Supreme Court in case of Liberty India (supra) held was a
benefit far removed from the assessee's business of export.
Cit vs M/S Meghalaya Steels Ltd on 9 March, 2016
1.os itxa 142-143-17.doc
incentives would be granted at the prescribed rate. The
objective behind granting such benefit was in order to
compensate high transport cost and to offset other
disadvantages. In clear terms, thus, the Government of India
realized that the products such as agricultural produce,
minor forest produce and Gram Udyog products as also forest
based products would have high transport cost and would be
accompanied by various other disadvantages. In order to
make the export of such products viable, the Government of
India decided to grant certain incentives under the said
scheme. The clear objective behind the scheme was, thus,
to reduce the cost of its procurements and to neutralize
certain inherent disadvantages attached to such products.
Clearly, thus, the case was covered by the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd (supra)
extensive reference to which has been made earlier.
Jai Bhagawan Oil And Flour Mills vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 October, 2006
"24. We do not find it necessary to refer in detail to any of the other
judgments that have been placed before us. The judgment in Jai
Bhagwan case (supra) is helpful on the nature of a transport subsidy
scheme, which is described as under:
1