<?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>2009 (7) TMI 1183 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164739</link>
    <description>An industrial unit was treated as a new unit for exemption under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act because the record showed separate land, distinct registrations and licences, independent production and account records, different directors, and manufacture of different ice-cream varieties with separate code numbers. The evidence supported separate existence rather than a mere addition or extension of an existing unit, and the exclusion for an existing unit or its expansion did not apply. The finding that the unit existed only on paper was unsupported. The Tribunal, as final fact-finder, was justified in accepting the evidence of independent identity and in granting the eligibility certificate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2014 14:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354507" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1183 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164739</link>
      <description>An industrial unit was treated as a new unit for exemption under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act because the record showed separate land, distinct registrations and licences, independent production and account records, different directors, and manufacture of different ice-cream varieties with separate code numbers. The evidence supported separate existence rather than a mere addition or extension of an existing unit, and the exclusion for an existing unit or its expansion did not apply. The finding that the unit existed only on paper was unsupported. The Tribunal, as final fact-finder, was justified in accepting the evidence of independent identity and in granting the eligibility certificate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164739</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>