<?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>1951 (4) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127118</link>
    <description>Section 8 placed the burden on the petitioners to prove that they acted as commission agents and satisfied the statutory requirements for that status. The record did not show fixed remuneration, the requisite accounts, or other material bringing them within the section. On that basis, the finding that they were dealers could not be disturbed, and the tax liability was sustained against them.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:03:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163996" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (4) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127118</link>
      <description>Section 8 placed the burden on the petitioners to prove that they acted as commission agents and satisfied the statutory requirements for that status. The record did not show fixed remuneration, the requisite accounts, or other material bringing them within the section. On that basis, the finding that they were dealers could not be disturbed, and the tax liability was sustained against them.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127118</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>