<?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>2025 (7) TMI 922 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774854</link>
    <description>Where an exemption notification grants Non-Resident Dealer status only for a new industrial unit supported by fresh NRI-backed capital with the required equity participation and lock-in, the same investment cannot be reused after it has already been utilised for an earlier unit. The record showed that the petitioner had already obtained the benefit for the Saw Pipe Division, while the SPEC division was treated as a separate unit but was not shown to be backed by fresh NRI investment made before commencement of production. The refusal to recognise the SPEC division for exemption was therefore justified, and the assessments based on that denial remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2025 08:17:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=836427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 922 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774854</link>
      <description>Where an exemption notification grants Non-Resident Dealer status only for a new industrial unit supported by fresh NRI-backed capital with the required equity participation and lock-in, the same investment cannot be reused after it has already been utilised for an earlier unit. The record showed that the petitioner had already obtained the benefit for the Saw Pipe Division, while the SPEC division was treated as a separate unit but was not shown to be backed by fresh NRI investment made before commencement of production. The refusal to recognise the SPEC division for exemption was therefore justified, and the assessments based on that denial remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774854</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>