<?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>2003 (4) TMI 523 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161570</link>
    <description>Section 4-A exemption for a tax holiday incentive must be construed liberally, and a claim cannot be rejected by treating machinery as old without addressing actual delivery and the relevant material. The record showed that the previous buyer had closed business, never took delivery of the digestor, and delivery was made directly by the fabricator to the petitioner. As the remand directions on actual delivery were ignored, the finding that the machinery was old had no factual basis. The refusal of exemption and rejection of review were therefore illegal, and the petitioner was entitled to the eligibility certificate and consequential tax benefits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Feb 2014 12:56:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 523 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161570</link>
      <description>Section 4-A exemption for a tax holiday incentive must be construed liberally, and a claim cannot be rejected by treating machinery as old without addressing actual delivery and the relevant material. The record showed that the previous buyer had closed business, never took delivery of the digestor, and delivery was made directly by the fabricator to the petitioner. As the remand directions on actual delivery were ignored, the finding that the machinery was old had no factual basis. The refusal of exemption and rejection of review were therefore illegal, and the petitioner was entitled to the eligibility certificate and consequential tax benefits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>