<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1977 (2) TMI 40 - ITAT GAUHATI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65685</link>
    <description>A company mainly engaged in printing was treated as an industrial company because printing was regarded as manufacture or processing of goods. The reasoning drew support from allied legislation, including the Factories Act, where printing forms part of a manufacturing process, and from the company&#039;s factory registration and coverage under the Employees State Insurance Act, which reinforced its manufacturing character. The printed product was also viewed as different from the raw materials used. References to Income-tax Act schedules were held irrelevant to the concessional treatment claimed under the Finance Acts, and the company was entitled to the concessional rate of tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:10:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=104122" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (2) TMI 40 - ITAT GAUHATI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65685</link>
      <description>A company mainly engaged in printing was treated as an industrial company because printing was regarded as manufacture or processing of goods. The reasoning drew support from allied legislation, including the Factories Act, where printing forms part of a manufacturing process, and from the company&#039;s factory registration and coverage under the Employees State Insurance Act, which reinforced its manufacturing character. The printed product was also viewed as different from the raw materials used. References to Income-tax Act schedules were held irrelevant to the concessional treatment claimed under the Finance Acts, and the company was entitled to the concessional rate of tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65685</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>