<?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>1996 (1) TMI 409 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158949</link>
    <description>Renewal of an eligibility certificate may be refused where a dealer sells machinery that had been treated as part of the business&#039;s plant and machinery and the disposal is not shown to be in the ordinary course of business. On the materials examined, the Premur disintegrator was reflected in the books, balance sheet and machinery records as a manufacturing asset, and its sale was not explained as obsolescence or breakdown, so it was treated as a sale of capital assets. The challenge to the refusal as arbitrary or unsupported was not accepted. The separate machine was less clearly documented, but renewal was sustained on the proved sale of the disintegrator.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:19:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335277" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 409 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158949</link>
      <description>Renewal of an eligibility certificate may be refused where a dealer sells machinery that had been treated as part of the business&#039;s plant and machinery and the disposal is not shown to be in the ordinary course of business. On the materials examined, the Premur disintegrator was reflected in the books, balance sheet and machinery records as a manufacturing asset, and its sale was not explained as obsolescence or breakdown, so it was treated as a sale of capital assets. The challenge to the refusal as arbitrary or unsupported was not accepted. The separate machine was less clearly documented, but renewal was sustained on the proved sale of the disintegrator.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158949</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>