« Top Headlines » Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs  Mock Test Papers Series - I & II for Students appearing in CA Foundation January 2027 Examination.  Income Tax Rules 2026: CBDT Introduces Revised Form 161 for Penalty Waiver, Clarifies Misreporting Categories and Taxpayer Relief  ITR Filing and Income Tax Audit Deadline Extended: 5 Critical Things Taxpayers Must Know  Filing Belated ITR for AY 2026-27? Know Which Losses You Can Carry Forward and Which You May Lose  CBDT Extends Tax Audit Report Deadline to October 21, ITR Filing Last Date to November 21 for AY 2026-27  CBDT Extends AY 2026-27 ITR Filing Deadline for Tax-Audit Cases: New Dates and Key Compliance Details  Foreign Assets Missing From Your ITR? Income Tax Department Opens One-Time Disclosure Window  Tax Audit Deadline September 30: Why AIS, TDS and GST Figures May Not Match Your ITR and What Taxpayers Should Do  Tax audit deadline September 30: Common mistakes taxpayers should avoid  Your ITR says ‘verified’, but the refund hasn’t arrived? 5 reasons why your money could be stuck  Missed the ITR Deadline but TDS Refund Is Due? Here’s How You Can Still Claim Your Money «  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.