<?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>1967 (4) TMI 186 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148266</link>
    <description>Whether electrification and supply-cum-installation contracts were works contracts or sales turned on the true character of the agreement, ascertained from the contract as a whole and the parties&#039; intention. A composite and indivisible contract, in which materials are supplied together with specialised labour, skill, design, erection and completion of the work, is not a sale merely because property in materials passes by affixture or invoices describe the transaction as supply. The Madras High Court noted that indicia such as technical execution, defect liability, delay penalties and payment linked to work done supported works-contract treatment, and rejected reliance on billing nomenclature as conclusive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 29 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:42:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166306" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (4) TMI 186 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148266</link>
      <description>Whether electrification and supply-cum-installation contracts were works contracts or sales turned on the true character of the agreement, ascertained from the contract as a whole and the parties&#039; intention. A composite and indivisible contract, in which materials are supplied together with specialised labour, skill, design, erection and completion of the work, is not a sale merely because property in materials passes by affixture or invoices describe the transaction as supply. The Madras High Court noted that indicia such as technical execution, defect liability, delay penalties and payment linked to work done supported works-contract treatment, and rejected reliance on billing nomenclature as conclusive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>