<?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 (1) TMI 157 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151111</link>
    <description>Adding scent to ordinary til oil did not change its essential character or create a new commercial commodity, so the process was not treated as manufacture. The court applied a common-sense test of transformation and found no positive material showing that the oil had become a different product in trade. On that basis, scented til oil was held not to amount to perfumed hair-oil for manufacture purposes, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 May 2013 15:20:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168150" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (1) TMI 157 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151111</link>
      <description>Adding scent to ordinary til oil did not change its essential character or create a new commercial commodity, so the process was not treated as manufacture. The court applied a common-sense test of transformation and found no positive material showing that the oil had become a different product in trade. On that basis, scented til oil was held not to amount to perfumed hair-oil for manufacture purposes, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>