Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID :

CASE DETAIL OF GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN 6 TH MAY 2010 OF BHARAT PETROLEU VS STATE OF GUJRAT

SATYENDRA ROY

PL SEND ME SUMMERY OF ABOVE CASE

BOTTLING OF GAS CYLINDER IS UNDER MANUFATURE UNIT OR NOT

Does Bottling Gas Cylinders Count as Manufacturing? Experts Debate Bharat Petroleum Case and Tax Implications A discussion on a forum revolves around a Gujarat High Court case from May 6, 2010, involving Bharat Petroleum versus the State of Gujarat. The primary issue is whether bottling gas cylinders constitutes a manufacturing activity. Participants, including experts, debate the classification, with consensus leaning towards it being manufacturing. They emphasize the importance of considering case law cautiously, understanding the background, and verifying facts before forming conclusions. The discussion highlights the necessity of seeking expert opinions in complex tax matters to ensure thorough understanding and accurate application of legal principles. (AI Summary)
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Ganeshan Kalyani on Sep 8, 2016

Sir, it is a manufacturing, as mentioned in the the case law cited by the expert M/s. Yagay and Sun. Thanks.

KASTURI SETHI on Sep 9, 2016

Sh.Ganeshan Kalyani Ji,

I agree with you, Sir. Before relying upon any case law one has to see the status. I mean to say whether the department has accepted the same or not. Sometimes some hidden issues are involved. So precaution has to be taken.

DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN on Sep 9, 2016

What is the outcome of the case?

Ganeshan Kalyani on Sep 9, 2016

Sir, I agree to your views Sir. Only after calling for full details about the background of the query one should comment on the query. I shall consider your advise. Thanks.

YAGAY andSUN on Sep 10, 2016

Case laws should be referred very cautiously and must be read with the related laws and along with its relevant provision. 

Ganeshan Kalyani on Sep 10, 2016

Sir, I guess or instead I am sure that the querist would not implement our views in the cases where the stake is high. They would definitely be cross checking with their know expert or consultant. However as a querist we are supposed to post replies after knowing the fact of the case. Thanks

Ganeshan Kalyani on Sep 11, 2016

Sir, please read as 'expert ' instead of 'querist' . Apologize. Thanks.

YAGAY andSUN on Sep 11, 2016

There is no harm in seeking a second opinion in Tax matters. Through, these discussions, we only provide an idea or a different point of view to solve a specific tax issue. A thorough opinion can be provided after going through the matter at length.

Ganeshan Kalyani on Sep 12, 2016

Yes sir. Fool-proof reply is possible to give only after studying the back ground of the case. Thanks.

+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues