<?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>1994 (11) TMI 374 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157909</link>
    <description>Section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was described as an incentive provision requiring liberal construction of the term &quot;owned&quot; in Explanation (1)(c). A unit on land jointly held by partners could not be denied eligibility merely because no formal partition deed or lease deed had been executed, where co-owners filed affidavits disclaiming objection and accepting exclusive occupation by the firm. The material circular and earlier judicial interpretation also had to be considered. On that reasoning, the rejection of the review application was held unsustainable and the matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2013 13:06:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (11) TMI 374 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157909</link>
      <description>Section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was described as an incentive provision requiring liberal construction of the term &quot;owned&quot; in Explanation (1)(c). A unit on land jointly held by partners could not be denied eligibility merely because no formal partition deed or lease deed had been executed, where co-owners filed affidavits disclaiming objection and accepting exclusive occupation by the firm. The material circular and earlier judicial interpretation also had to be considered. On that reasoning, the rejection of the review application was held unsustainable and the matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157909</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>