<?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>1998 (1) TMI 13 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14742</link>
    <description>Construction and sale of commercial flats in multi-storeyed buildings was not treated as manufacturing activity for the purpose of industrial company status. Applying the end-product test, the Delhi High Court held that where building work merely consumes materials in the assessee&#039;s own construction activity and does not produce a final manufactured product, the assessee cannot be regarded as a producer engaged in manufacturing. On that reasoning, the assessee did not fall within the statutory description of an industrial company under section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1979 and was not entitled to the concessional tax rate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:14:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 13 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14742</link>
      <description>Construction and sale of commercial flats in multi-storeyed buildings was not treated as manufacturing activity for the purpose of industrial company status. Applying the end-product test, the Delhi High Court held that where building work merely consumes materials in the assessee&#039;s own construction activity and does not produce a final manufactured product, the assessee cannot be regarded as a producer engaged in manufacturing. On that reasoning, the assessee did not fall within the statutory description of an industrial company under section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1979 and was not entitled to the concessional tax rate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>