<?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>1990 (7) TMI 346 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156514</link>
    <description>Under a tax-holiday scheme linked to investment in plant and machinery, &quot;investment&quot; was construed as purchase-based capital expenditure supported by vouchers and documents, not lease rent or the value of leased machinery. A new industrial unit could not count leased assets toward the prescribed investment ceiling, because that would defeat the statutory classification and purpose of the exemption scheme. The amended definition of &quot;sale&quot; was also held irrelevant, as the amendment took effect later than the relevant transaction. The rejection of the eligibility certificates was therefore upheld, and no exemption was available on the basis of leased machinery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:47:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (7) TMI 346 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156514</link>
      <description>Under a tax-holiday scheme linked to investment in plant and machinery, &quot;investment&quot; was construed as purchase-based capital expenditure supported by vouchers and documents, not lease rent or the value of leased machinery. A new industrial unit could not count leased assets toward the prescribed investment ceiling, because that would defeat the statutory classification and purpose of the exemption scheme. The amended definition of &quot;sale&quot; was also held irrelevant, as the amendment took effect later than the relevant transaction. The rejection of the eligibility certificates was therefore upheld, and no exemption was available on the basis of leased machinery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156514</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>