<?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 (8) TMI 278 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157741</link>
    <description>An industrial unit is treated as &quot;set up&quot; when it has reached functional readiness to commence its intended operations, not merely when preliminary arrangements or financing are completed. Actual production is not required, but the unit must be ready to function as a productive unit. On the facts, the absence of electricity sanction until February 1989 showed that an essential ingredient for functionality was missing by 1 October 1988. The earlier loan sanction was therefore irrelevant. The unit was not set up by the cutoff date, and the petitioner was entitled to the enhanced subsidy and release of the balance amount under the incentive order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:10:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174764" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (8) TMI 278 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157741</link>
      <description>An industrial unit is treated as &quot;set up&quot; when it has reached functional readiness to commence its intended operations, not merely when preliminary arrangements or financing are completed. Actual production is not required, but the unit must be ready to function as a productive unit. On the facts, the absence of electricity sanction until February 1989 showed that an essential ingredient for functionality was missing by 1 October 1988. The earlier loan sanction was therefore irrelevant. The unit was not set up by the cutoff date, and the petitioner was entitled to the enhanced subsidy and release of the balance amount under the incentive order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157741</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>