<?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>1993 (2) TMI 311 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157675</link>
    <description>Section 10F of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was interpreted by its own broad definition of &quot;gross value of fixed assets&quot;, which was wider than the narrower exclusions in the departmental rules. On that footing, productive equipment reasonably connected with manufacture or the operational upkeep of the unit, including a grinder, main switches, welding transformer and drilling equipment, fell within &quot;plant and machinery&quot; for section 10F purposes. The disputed items were therefore includible in fixed capital assets, the investment crossed the statutory threshold for deferred tax payment, and the rejection of the benefit could not be sustained. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:49:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174698" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (2) TMI 311 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157675</link>
      <description>Section 10F of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was interpreted by its own broad definition of &quot;gross value of fixed assets&quot;, which was wider than the narrower exclusions in the departmental rules. On that footing, productive equipment reasonably connected with manufacture or the operational upkeep of the unit, including a grinder, main switches, welding transformer and drilling equipment, fell within &quot;plant and machinery&quot; for section 10F purposes. The disputed items were therefore includible in fixed capital assets, the investment crossed the statutory threshold for deferred tax payment, and the rejection of the benefit could not be sustained. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>