<?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 (10) TMI 30 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15425</link>
    <description>Under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, mere duplication of documents with a xerox machine is not manufacture of goods, articles or things. The process produces only a copy of the original document, in substance similar to carbon duplication, and does not transform the activity into manufacturing. On that basis, investment allowance was not available in respect of the xerox machine, and the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:08:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 30 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15425</link>
      <description>Under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, mere duplication of documents with a xerox machine is not manufacture of goods, articles or things. The process produces only a copy of the original document, in substance similar to carbon duplication, and does not transform the activity into manufacturing. On that basis, investment allowance was not available in respect of the xerox machine, and the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>