<?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>1976 (4) TMI 80 - ITAT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68873</link>
    <description>Unfinished rough castings sold for further machining did not qualify as component parts for concessional sales tax under section 3(3), because the amended requirement demanded an identifiable constituent of the finished product at the time of sale, visually or by mechanical process and not by chemical process. The castings acquired the character of tappets only after substantial processing by the buyer, so the concessional rate was unavailable. Revision of assessment under section 16 was also unjustified on the existing record, since the original assessment had already considered the claim and no fresh factual basis supported reopening. The revisional interference was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Apr 2011 11:50:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107247" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (4) TMI 80 - ITAT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68873</link>
      <description>Unfinished rough castings sold for further machining did not qualify as component parts for concessional sales tax under section 3(3), because the amended requirement demanded an identifiable constituent of the finished product at the time of sale, visually or by mechanical process and not by chemical process. The castings acquired the character of tappets only after substantial processing by the buyer, so the concessional rate was unavailable. Revision of assessment under section 16 was also unjustified on the existing record, since the original assessment had already considered the claim and no fresh factual basis supported reopening. The revisional interference was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>