<?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 (7) TMI 110 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148274</link>
    <description>A commission agent assessed as a dealer under the sales tax scheme was entitled to deduct excise duty from turnover taxed in his hands because the transactions were in substance those of the principal. The court construed the assessment machinery and Rule 6 in line with the real character of the sale, holding that a statutory device cannot deny deductions that would have been available to the principal. This approach avoids distorting the transaction&#039;s nature and prevents inconsistent tax consequences where the same turnover may later be assessed in the principal&#039;s hands. The deduction was therefore allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:00:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (7) TMI 110 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148274</link>
      <description>A commission agent assessed as a dealer under the sales tax scheme was entitled to deduct excise duty from turnover taxed in his hands because the transactions were in substance those of the principal. The court construed the assessment machinery and Rule 6 in line with the real character of the sale, holding that a statutory device cannot deny deductions that would have been available to the principal. This approach avoids distorting the transaction&#039;s nature and prevents inconsistent tax consequences where the same turnover may later be assessed in the principal&#039;s hands. The deduction was therefore allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>