<?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>1983 (6) TMI 172 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154292</link>
    <description>For eligibility under a notification issued under section 4AA of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, &quot;investment of the dealer on plant and machinery excluding land and building&quot; was construed to mean the actual purchase cost of plant and machinery only. Installation charges were not expressly included, varied with circumstances, and their inclusion could create unequal tax holiday outcomes for dealers using the same machinery. As fiscal legislation is to be interpreted in favour of the assessee where two reasonable views are possible, installation expenses were excluded from the investment computation. The refusal to issue the eligibility certificate was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Aug 2013 18:05:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171325" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (6) TMI 172 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154292</link>
      <description>For eligibility under a notification issued under section 4AA of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, &quot;investment of the dealer on plant and machinery excluding land and building&quot; was construed to mean the actual purchase cost of plant and machinery only. Installation charges were not expressly included, varied with circumstances, and their inclusion could create unequal tax holiday outcomes for dealers using the same machinery. As fiscal legislation is to be interpreted in favour of the assessee where two reasonable views are possible, installation expenses were excluded from the investment computation. The refusal to issue the eligibility certificate was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154292</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>