<?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>1964 (8) TMI 81 - High Court Of Kerala</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193234</link>
    <description>Machinery or plant qualifying under the development rebate provision had to be new, installed after the relevant date, and wholly used for the business carried on by the assessee. The expression &quot;wholly used&quot; was treated as distinct from &quot;exclusively used&quot;, especially where the same provision elsewhere used both words together. Assets used in their entirety in the tea business and also, when spare, in coffee cultivation were still regarded as wholly used for the assessee&#039;s business. The fact that the coffee income was agricultural income did not by itself defeat the statutory condition, because the decisive question was the nature of the asset&#039;s user in the business.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:28:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=481900" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (8) TMI 81 - High Court Of Kerala</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193234</link>
      <description>Machinery or plant qualifying under the development rebate provision had to be new, installed after the relevant date, and wholly used for the business carried on by the assessee. The expression &quot;wholly used&quot; was treated as distinct from &quot;exclusively used&quot;, especially where the same provision elsewhere used both words together. Assets used in their entirety in the tea business and also, when spare, in coffee cultivation were still regarded as wholly used for the assessee&#039;s business. The fact that the coffee income was agricultural income did not by itself defeat the statutory condition, because the decisive question was the nature of the asset&#039;s user in the business.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193234</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>