<?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>2006 (6) TMI 497 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163735</link>
    <description>Under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, part payments made during the exemption period towards acquisition of premises used by an industrial unit were treated as admissible investment forming part of the &quot;gross value of fixed assets&quot;, even though the conveyance was registered later. Purchase in the name of a registered partnership firm was also attributable to the dealer, since the firm name represented the partners and the premises formed part of the manufacturing unit. The rejected investment was therefore required to be included in the fixed-asset value, and exemption entitlement had to be redetermined accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:15:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351632" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 497 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163735</link>
      <description>Under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, part payments made during the exemption period towards acquisition of premises used by an industrial unit were treated as admissible investment forming part of the &quot;gross value of fixed assets&quot;, even though the conveyance was registered later. Purchase in the name of a registered partnership firm was also attributable to the dealer, since the firm name represented the partners and the premises formed part of the manufacturing unit. The rejected investment was therefore required to be included in the fixed-asset value, and exemption entitlement had to be redetermined accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163735</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>