<?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>1968 (12) TMI 27 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7958</link>
    <description>Machinery kept ready for use under a binding pooling arrangement may be treated as &quot;used&quot; for tax purposes, even if not actively operated, where it remains available in the business and is maintained to earn profits. The analysis reads the word &quot;used&quot; in section 10(2)(vii) with the business-use provision in section 10(2)(iv), and applies the settled principle that passive user can satisfy the statutory test. On the stated facts, presses included in the pooling arrangement fell within that concept of user because they had to be kept in working condition and could be called upon if required; machinery outside the arrangement was not covered by that reasoning.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (12) TMI 27 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7958</link>
      <description>Machinery kept ready for use under a binding pooling arrangement may be treated as &quot;used&quot; for tax purposes, even if not actively operated, where it remains available in the business and is maintained to earn profits. The analysis reads the word &quot;used&quot; in section 10(2)(vii) with the business-use provision in section 10(2)(iv), and applies the settled principle that passive user can satisfy the statutory test. On the stated facts, presses included in the pooling arrangement fell within that concept of user because they had to be kept in working condition and could be called upon if required; machinery outside the arrangement was not covered by that reasoning.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7958</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>