<?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 (8) TMI 501 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159392</link>
    <description>A statutory tax concession linked to a commissioned industrial unit for a fixed five-year period continued for the unexpired term after transfer of the unit. The benefit under section 5CC was treated as attached to the industrial unit, not as ending merely because ownership changed, provided the unit continued unchanged in nature and composition. The transferee, stepping into the shoes of the transferor, could therefore claim the remaining remission period. Earlier cases concerning partnership and proprietary concerns were treated as fact-specific and not controlling on these facts. The revenue challenge failed, and the concessional treatment for the unexpired period was maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:43:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336640" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 501 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159392</link>
      <description>A statutory tax concession linked to a commissioned industrial unit for a fixed five-year period continued for the unexpired term after transfer of the unit. The benefit under section 5CC was treated as attached to the industrial unit, not as ending merely because ownership changed, provided the unit continued unchanged in nature and composition. The transferee, stepping into the shoes of the transferor, could therefore claim the remaining remission period. Earlier cases concerning partnership and proprietary concerns were treated as fact-specific and not controlling on these facts. The revenue challenge failed, and the concessional treatment for the unexpired period was maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>