<?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 (7) TMI 140 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151212</link>
    <description>A handpump was treated as a mechanical contrivance used for lifting water, and devices of that kind had consistently been regarded as machinery where energy is transmitted from one point to another. On that reasoning, the term &quot;machinery&quot; in Notification No. ST-7098/X-1012-1965 dated 1 October 1965 was construed to include a handpump, so the handpump fell within the notification as machinery in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Jun 2013 16:40:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (7) TMI 140 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151212</link>
      <description>A handpump was treated as a mechanical contrivance used for lifting water, and devices of that kind had consistently been regarded as machinery where energy is transmitted from one point to another. On that reasoning, the term &quot;machinery&quot; in Notification No. ST-7098/X-1012-1965 dated 1 October 1965 was construed to include a handpump, so the handpump fell within the notification as machinery in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151212</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>