<?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>2000 (3) TMI 1042 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160044</link>
    <description>Amounts payable for land and building after the date of first sale could not be treated as fixed capital investment for section 4-A eligibility, because only investment actually made on or before the relevant commencement date counted; the exemption was therefore denied for the balance amount. Plant and machinery purchased from a State Government corporation had to be examined under the post-31 March 1990 explanation to section 4-A, which excludes previously used machinery but carves out machinery sold by a Government company or government-controlled corporation; the authority&#039;s reliance on the wrong clause was erroneous, so the denial on this issue was set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Dec 2013 15:47:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338498" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 1042 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160044</link>
      <description>Amounts payable for land and building after the date of first sale could not be treated as fixed capital investment for section 4-A eligibility, because only investment actually made on or before the relevant commencement date counted; the exemption was therefore denied for the balance amount. Plant and machinery purchased from a State Government corporation had to be examined under the post-31 March 1990 explanation to section 4-A, which excludes previously used machinery but carves out machinery sold by a Government company or government-controlled corporation; the authority&#039;s reliance on the wrong clause was erroneous, so the denial on this issue was set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>