<?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>2004 (2) TMI 724 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280927</link>
    <description>Under the U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971, only the factory and properties held or occupied for factory purposes vested in the acquiring corporation. The Kanpur premises were the company&#039;s registered office, and the record did not show that they had been approved or used as a sugar godown, director&#039;s residence, or guest house connected with the factory. The Act acquired the sugar undertaking and its factory-related assets, not the company as a broader juristic entity. The reference to the purchase-tax regime did not establish factory-use status, so the premises remained outside the acquired undertaking.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 May 2019 13:03:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=572817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 724 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280927</link>
      <description>Under the U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971, only the factory and properties held or occupied for factory purposes vested in the acquiring corporation. The Kanpur premises were the company&#039;s registered office, and the record did not show that they had been approved or used as a sugar godown, director&#039;s residence, or guest house connected with the factory. The Act acquired the sugar undertaking and its factory-related assets, not the company as a broader juristic entity. The reference to the purchase-tax regime did not establish factory-use status, so the premises remained outside the acquired undertaking.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>