<?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>2019 (7) TMI 1046 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383350</link>
    <description>Section 54G deduction was available where the transferred premises was a magazine regulated under the Explosives Rules, 2008 and used for storing bulk explosives and repacking them for retail sale. Reading section 54G(1) with the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, the Court treated that activity as falling within the inclusive statutory meaning of manufacture. The premises was therefore regarded as used for the business of an industrial undertaking shifted from an urban area to a non-urban area, and the Tribunal&#039;s approach was upheld. The assessee was entitled to the deduction, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2019 07:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=580395" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 1046 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383350</link>
      <description>Section 54G deduction was available where the transferred premises was a magazine regulated under the Explosives Rules, 2008 and used for storing bulk explosives and repacking them for retail sale. Reading section 54G(1) with the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, the Court treated that activity as falling within the inclusive statutory meaning of manufacture. The premises was therefore regarded as used for the business of an industrial undertaking shifted from an urban area to a non-urban area, and the Tribunal&#039;s approach was upheld. The assessee was entitled to the deduction, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383350</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>