<?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>1975 (1) TMI 72 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150841</link>
    <description>Materials used only for studio maintenance or for making film sets to be hired out were treated as adjuncts to the studio-hire activity or as additions to capital assets, so their purchase did not amount to carrying on the business of buying goods and did not make the assessee a dealer. By contrast, chemicals and other processing materials consumed in processing customers&#039; films were indispensable business inputs, so their purchase did attract dealer status. The processing of raw film into processed film was also held to be manufacture because the statute treated processing as manufacture and the activity produced a commercially different commodity, even though the processed film belonged to the customer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 18 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 14:01:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167881" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (1) TMI 72 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150841</link>
      <description>Materials used only for studio maintenance or for making film sets to be hired out were treated as adjuncts to the studio-hire activity or as additions to capital assets, so their purchase did not amount to carrying on the business of buying goods and did not make the assessee a dealer. By contrast, chemicals and other processing materials consumed in processing customers&#039; films were indispensable business inputs, so their purchase did attract dealer status. The processing of raw film into processed film was also held to be manufacture because the statute treated processing as manufacture and the activity produced a commercially different commodity, even though the processed film belonged to the customer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 18 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150841</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>