<?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>1971 (11) TMI 159 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160396</link>
    <description>Fair price fixation under an industrial control order was analysed on the basis of current production cost, reasonable return and achievable capacity. Warranty and bonus expenses were treated as items falling within return, not ex-works cost. Historical cost for September 1969 was rejected in favour of current cost, and an escalation-de-escalation mechanism was considered necessary to reflect genuine cost changes. Depreciation was linked to actual cost rather than replacement value. Production capacities for the manufacturers were revised on the evidence, while royalty, local steel consumption and dealer&#039;s mark-up were generally sustained where the record did not justify interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339672" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (11) TMI 159 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160396</link>
      <description>Fair price fixation under an industrial control order was analysed on the basis of current production cost, reasonable return and achievable capacity. Warranty and bonus expenses were treated as items falling within return, not ex-works cost. Historical cost for September 1969 was rejected in favour of current cost, and an escalation-de-escalation mechanism was considered necessary to reflect genuine cost changes. Depreciation was linked to actual cost rather than replacement value. Production capacities for the manufacturers were revised on the evidence, while royalty, local steel consumption and dealer&#039;s mark-up were generally sustained where the record did not justify interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160396</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>