Find a Lawyer

versus

Sections 5 (1) (xv) (i) and 16 (3) of CBR Circular No. 3 (2) / PT III / 90 (Pt), dated 911 1990 with respect to certain assets in lieu of exempt machinery. The exception was denied on the basis that the money spent on the purchase of machinery was exempt and since the shares of the Essex were not the machinery, the exemption was not accepted as the investment in the machinery was converted into shares. Has stated that Assissee has been granted exemption from exempt exemptions. There was an exception in respect of the assets brought by the non-resident Assisi from abroad and once the assets acquired by the sale of the assets were disposed of, the exemptions would not be granted as the assets would never be disposed of in this case. Was not made because the asset was acquired by being a director. There was no change in the form of the assets nor the assets used for any other purpose in return for the company he had brought from abroad, except for that purpose, just on the basis of speculation. , Cannot be denied to validate this claim unless it is legitimate that the Assessment has changed the status of the Assets, the exception cannot be allowed that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the Assessment failed. Has not changed in any way. The status of the assets, as they were part of the company in exchange for assets acquired abroad, and the exception officer's orders were vacated by the appellate tribunal and the Assessing Officer was instructed to provide an apology. Allow to ask online advocate from Patoki lawyer