<?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>1999 (4) TMI 35 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15433</link>
    <description>A firm that merely supplied raw material to independent weavers and sold the finished cloth was not carrying on manufacture or processing itself for section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The benefit of the exemption was available only where the assessee itself conducted the manufacturing activity; here, the firm neither owned the manufacturing facility nor employed the weavers, and its role was limited to procuring materials and arranging production through others. The Court therefore held that outsourcing the work to independent persons did not amount to an industrial undertaking, and the question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:36:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 35 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15433</link>
      <description>A firm that merely supplied raw material to independent weavers and sold the finished cloth was not carrying on manufacture or processing itself for section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The benefit of the exemption was available only where the assessee itself conducted the manufacturing activity; here, the firm neither owned the manufacturing facility nor employed the weavers, and its role was limited to procuring materials and arranging production through others. The Court therefore held that outsourcing the work to independent persons did not amount to an industrial undertaking, and the question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>