<?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>1980 (1) TMI 48 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36667</link>
    <description>Eligibility for the higher development rebate under section 33(1)(b)(B)(i) depended on whether the plant and machinery were used to manufacture automobile ancillaries. The company manufactured screws and bolts, but the departmental authorities found these to be ordinary goods usable in general machinery rather than items exclusively manufactured as automobile ancillaries. A registration certificate relied on by the company showed only its status for IDA financing and did not prove that its actual production had been registered as automobile ancillary production. The certificate was therefore insufficient, and the higher rebate was denied in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:28:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=75213" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (1) TMI 48 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36667</link>
      <description>Eligibility for the higher development rebate under section 33(1)(b)(B)(i) depended on whether the plant and machinery were used to manufacture automobile ancillaries. The company manufactured screws and bolts, but the departmental authorities found these to be ordinary goods usable in general machinery rather than items exclusively manufactured as automobile ancillaries. A registration certificate relied on by the company showed only its status for IDA financing and did not prove that its actual production had been registered as automobile ancillary production. The certificate was therefore insufficient, and the higher rebate was denied in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36667</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>