« Top Headlines » Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs  BackBack Income Tax Act amendment on cards on tax treatment of MSME dues  ITR-1, ITR-2, ITR-4 forms for FY 2023-24 available for e-filing. Check details here  Income tax slabs FY 2024-25: Experts share these 8 benefits for taxpayers in new income tax regime  How To File ITR Online - Step by Step Guide to Efile Income Tax Return, FY 2023-24 (AY 2024-25)  Old or new tax regime for TDS on salary? This post-election 2024 event will impact your tax planning  What Are 5 Heads Of Income Tax?  Income Tax Dept releases interim action plan for FY25 on tax collection, refund approvals   Income Tax Return: 5 lesser-known tax-saving tips from Section 80  Income Tax Return: 5 lesser-known tax-saving tips from Section 80  Why you need not rush to file your ITR immediately  Income tax returns: ITR-1, ITR-2, ITR-4 forms for FY 2023-24 available for e-filing «  I-T form rules could prove troublesome to taxpayers... Postal deposits may lose TDS exemption... » Carrier Aircon wins excise case July, 10th 2006 The Supreme Court last week dismissed an appeal of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi, and upheld the contention of Carrier Aircon Ltd that the chillers it manufactured for central air-conditioning systems were entitled to a lower duty.    The revenue authorities contended that chillers are integral to the air conditioning systems used in big hotels, airports or hospitals. On the other hand, the company argued that the primary function of the chiller is to produce chilled water/liquid.    The excise appellate tribunal accepted the manufacturer's contention. The Supreme Court upheld that view and explained that air-conditioning system was just one among various industrial applications in relation to which chillers are used.    Further, it said that the end use to which a product is put to, by itself, could not be determinative of the classification of the product.    Mumbai firms to vacate premises    The Supreme Court last week dismissed a large number of appeals by Mumbai firms challenging the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.    The Bombay High Court had already dismissed the petitions moved by Crawford Bayley & Co, Nusli Wadia and others occupying prime property in the metropolis.    Their appeals to the Supreme Court were dismissed following the earlier rulings of the apex court on tenancy of public premises. The court asked the estate officer to proceed with these matters speedily.    Subsidies for prestigious units    The Supreme Court has held that Jai Beverages Pvt Ltd was entitled to all the incentives and subsidies applicable to prestigious units under the industrial policy announced by the Jammu and Kashmir government in 1998.    The government had offered a package of incentives to industrial units, especially those which invested Rs 25 crore or more. The incentives included exemption from payment of general sales tax and central sales tax.    This company manufactured soft drinks and was declared a prestigious unit. However, when it claimed the benefits under the package, the government denied them. The high court dismissed its petition and upheld the government's view.    The company moved SC, which overruled the high court and emphasised that the company had fulfilled the conditions for the exemption. The state cannot be permitted to ignore its own conscious decision to permit it to invest Rs 25 crore by the deadline, the court said.