<?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>1986 (3) TMI 12 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25668</link>
    <description>The High Court of Madras ruled in a case concerning the interpretation of section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 regarding exemption for industrial undertakings. The court held that the bleaching of grey yarn by a firm qualified as processing work of an industrial undertaking, entitling the assessee to exemption for assets of the firm directly involved in the processing. The court emphasized that engaging an outside agency for manufacturing does not disqualify an assessee from being considered a manufacturer. The judgment concluded that the assessee was entitled to exemption only for assets directly related to the processing work, denying exemption for assets of another firm.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:03:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64666" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (3) TMI 12 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25668</link>
      <description>The High Court of Madras ruled in a case concerning the interpretation of section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 regarding exemption for industrial undertakings. The court held that the bleaching of grey yarn by a firm qualified as processing work of an industrial undertaking, entitling the assessee to exemption for assets of the firm directly involved in the processing. The court emphasized that engaging an outside agency for manufacturing does not disqualify an assessee from being considered a manufacturer. The judgment concluded that the assessee was entitled to exemption only for assets directly related to the processing work, denying exemption for assets of another firm.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25668</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>