<?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>2003 (1) TMI 98 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40345</link>
    <description>A cement plant unit was held not to qualify as a new industrial undertaking for electricity duty exemption because it was an expansion of an existing business. The governing exemption provision expressly excluded undertakings formed by expansion, and the unit depended on the existing plant&#039;s crushers, cranes, raw mills, packing machinery and other old assets to complete production. A new undertaking must be a physically separate, identifiable and viable unit capable of independent operation; here, the old and alleged new units retained the same physical identity. The exemption available under the Income-tax Act was distinguishable because the present statute specifically barred expansion cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2014 13:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78886" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 98 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40345</link>
      <description>A cement plant unit was held not to qualify as a new industrial undertaking for electricity duty exemption because it was an expansion of an existing business. The governing exemption provision expressly excluded undertakings formed by expansion, and the unit depended on the existing plant&#039;s crushers, cranes, raw mills, packing machinery and other old assets to complete production. A new undertaking must be a physically separate, identifiable and viable unit capable of independent operation; here, the old and alleged new units retained the same physical identity. The exemption available under the Income-tax Act was distinguishable because the present statute specifically barred expansion cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>