<?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>1960 (11) TMI 105 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128281</link>
    <description>Goods sold under a hire-purchase arrangement and later returned to the seller were treated as a sale for turnover purposes, but deduction under rule 5(1)(b) was confined to the amount actually allowed on return. The decisive factor was the extent of the allowance reflected in the accounts, not the original assessment of the full sale price. Where the return of goods terminated liability for the unpaid balance, only those unpaid instalments could be deducted from gross turnover, provided the accounting requirement was satisfied. On the stated facts, the deductible amount was limited to the unpaid instalments and not the entire price previously taxed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:27:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (11) TMI 105 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128281</link>
      <description>Goods sold under a hire-purchase arrangement and later returned to the seller were treated as a sale for turnover purposes, but deduction under rule 5(1)(b) was confined to the amount actually allowed on return. The decisive factor was the extent of the allowance reflected in the accounts, not the original assessment of the full sale price. Where the return of goods terminated liability for the unpaid balance, only those unpaid instalments could be deducted from gross turnover, provided the accounting requirement was satisfied. On the stated facts, the deductible amount was limited to the unpaid instalments and not the entire price previously taxed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128281</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>