<?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>1976 (10) TMI 65 - ITAT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68905</link>
    <description>A composite venture to acquire properties, dismantle movable installations and resell them was treated as business, making the participants dealers; Burmah Shell was not regarded as the first seller of the disputed movables. The Tribunal also held that only items proved to be declared goods under section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, such as dismantled tanks and pipes sold as scrap, could attract the concessional declared-goods rate, while generator set, engine and certain shed materials were not sufficiently shown to satisfy that description and remained taxable at the ordinary rate. Penalty for the first assessment year was cancelled because the returns were filed and disclosed in a bona fide dispute without wilful default.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Apr 2011 12:56:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (10) TMI 65 - ITAT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68905</link>
      <description>A composite venture to acquire properties, dismantle movable installations and resell them was treated as business, making the participants dealers; Burmah Shell was not regarded as the first seller of the disputed movables. The Tribunal also held that only items proved to be declared goods under section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, such as dismantled tanks and pipes sold as scrap, could attract the concessional declared-goods rate, while generator set, engine and certain shed materials were not sufficiently shown to satisfy that description and remained taxable at the ordinary rate. Penalty for the first assessment year was cancelled because the returns were filed and disclosed in a bona fide dispute without wilful default.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68905</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>