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

WhatsAppJoin Channel
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: 110884
Like 0Bookmark

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

Date 08 Sep 2016
Replies10 Replies
Views 1337 Views
Manufacturing classification: bottling of gas cylinders treated as manufacturing, but factual verification and expert review advised.
Whether bottling of gas cylinders is manufacturing is central; the cited Gujarat High Court decision is said to treat bottling as manufacturing. Contributors stress that classification depends on the functional nature of operations and urge verification of facts, departmental stance, and related legal provisions before relying on the precedent. (AI Summary)

PL SEND ME SUMMERY OF ABOVE CASE

BOTTLING OF GAS CYLINDER IS UNDER MANUFATURE UNIT OR NOT

10 answers
Sort by

Old Query - New Comments are closed.

Hide
Like 0
Replied on Sep 8, 2016
2.

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

Like 0
Replied on Sep 9, 2016
3.

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.

Like 0
Replied on Sep 9, 2016
4.

What is the outcome of the case?

Like 0
Replied on Sep 9, 2016
5.

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.

Like 0
Replied on Sep 10, 2016
6.

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

Like 0
Replied on Sep 10, 2016
7.

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

Like 0
Replied on Sep 11, 2016
8.

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

Like 0
Replied on Sep 11, 2016
9.

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.

Like 0
Replied on Sep 12, 2016
10.

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

Old Query - New Comments are closed.

Hide
Recent Issues