<?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>2007 (8) TMI 665 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163064</link>
    <description>Eligibility under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was discussed in the context of a unit initially occupying land under unregistered lease deeds, followed by a later registered lease deed made effective from an earlier date. The text states that entitlement should not be restricted to the date of formal registration where the deed related back, and that the earlier High Court order did not confine eligibility to a single date but left the merits open. It also notes that the Tribunal and committee erred in treating that observation as limiting relief, and that exclusion of the lease deeds as additional evidence under section 12D was unsustainable on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 12:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 665 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163064</link>
      <description>Eligibility under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was discussed in the context of a unit initially occupying land under unregistered lease deeds, followed by a later registered lease deed made effective from an earlier date. The text states that entitlement should not be restricted to the date of formal registration where the deed related back, and that the earlier High Court order did not confine eligibility to a single date but left the merits open. It also notes that the Tribunal and committee erred in treating that observation as limiting relief, and that exclusion of the lease deeds as additional evidence under section 12D was unsustainable on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>