<?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>2017 (8) TMI 385 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346327</link>
    <description>A statutory development corporation constituted under special law was discussed as falling within section 10(20A) because its irrigation, flood control, water management and allied development functions were treated as materially furthering the planning and development of cities, towns and villages; on that wide purposive construction, exemption was said to be available. The commentary also notes that commencement of business under section 28 turned on operational facts: takeover of projects, working canals, supply of water, collection of water charges and actual sale of water showed business activity beyond preparation, and the finding was treated as unimpeachable. The Tribunal&#039;s view was accordingly upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 385 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346327</link>
      <description>A statutory development corporation constituted under special law was discussed as falling within section 10(20A) because its irrigation, flood control, water management and allied development functions were treated as materially furthering the planning and development of cities, towns and villages; on that wide purposive construction, exemption was said to be available. The commentary also notes that commencement of business under section 28 turned on operational facts: takeover of projects, working canals, supply of water, collection of water charges and actual sale of water showed business activity beyond preparation, and the finding was treated as unimpeachable. The Tribunal&#039;s view was accordingly upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>