<?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>1954 (9) TMI 20 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127439</link>
    <description>Under the statutory definition of sale price, cash discount or trade discount is deductible where ordinary trade practice and the contractual position show that the amount is not part of the dealer&#039;s receivable price, and the burden lies on the Department to prove otherwise. Railway freight paid by the purchaser is not excluded where the contract is F.O.R. destination and the price is inclusive of freight, because freight then forms part of the consideration even if paid to a third party. The reference court also declined to reopen the revenue authorities&#039; finding that the contracts were made while the goods were situate in the Province, so the sales were treated as having taken place there.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Mar 2013 10:02:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164316" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (9) TMI 20 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127439</link>
      <description>Under the statutory definition of sale price, cash discount or trade discount is deductible where ordinary trade practice and the contractual position show that the amount is not part of the dealer&#039;s receivable price, and the burden lies on the Department to prove otherwise. Railway freight paid by the purchaser is not excluded where the contract is F.O.R. destination and the price is inclusive of freight, because freight then forms part of the consideration even if paid to a third party. The reference court also declined to reopen the revenue authorities&#039; finding that the contracts were made while the goods were situate in the Province, so the sales were treated as having taken place there.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>