<?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>2005 (11) TMI 481 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174620</link>
    <description>An old mixer machine used only in the laboratory for mixing purposes did not defeat a unit&#039;s claim to be treated as a new unit for exemption under section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The exemption scheme was to be construed liberally, and the post-31.03.1990 test focused on whether old machinery was essential to the manufacturing process. Because the mixer was a small, inexpensive article, not part of the essential manufacturing plant for paints and adhesives, and the unit had produced for two years without it, it was not treated as disqualifying machinery. The exemption period therefore was not curtailed, and the unit remained eligible for the full period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:38:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401221" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 481 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174620</link>
      <description>An old mixer machine used only in the laboratory for mixing purposes did not defeat a unit&#039;s claim to be treated as a new unit for exemption under section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The exemption scheme was to be construed liberally, and the post-31.03.1990 test focused on whether old machinery was essential to the manufacturing process. Because the mixer was a small, inexpensive article, not part of the essential manufacturing plant for paints and adhesives, and the unit had produced for two years without it, it was not treated as disqualifying machinery. The exemption period therefore was not curtailed, and the unit remained eligible for the full period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>