<?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>1985 (12) TMI 78 - ITAT BOMBAY-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58166</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the firm did not qualify as an &quot;industrial undertaking&quot; under the Wealth Tax Act. The assessee&#039;s interest in the firm&#039;s assets was not exempted, as the distribution of kerosene was not considered a form of power as per the Act. The Tribunal concluded that kerosene, being a fuel, did not directly represent energy itself but released stored chemical energy when combusted, thus not meeting the criteria for exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:40:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=96624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (12) TMI 78 - ITAT BOMBAY-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58166</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the firm did not qualify as an &quot;industrial undertaking&quot; under the Wealth Tax Act. The assessee&#039;s interest in the firm&#039;s assets was not exempted, as the distribution of kerosene was not considered a form of power as per the Act. The Tribunal concluded that kerosene, being a fuel, did not directly represent energy itself but released stored chemical energy when combusted, thus not meeting the criteria for exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58166</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>