<?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>1972 (8) TMI 126 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150523</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the partnership firm, setting aside the assessment orders and demand notices issued by the Sales Tax Officer. The firm was deemed not to be a dealer for sales tax purposes concerning the goods sold at auctions. The judgment emphasized the distinction between the firm&#039;s role as an auctioneer and a dealer, providing clarity on the taxation treatment of auction proceeds for similar entities in the future.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 12:11:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (8) TMI 126 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150523</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the partnership firm, setting aside the assessment orders and demand notices issued by the Sales Tax Officer. The firm was deemed not to be a dealer for sales tax purposes concerning the goods sold at auctions. The judgment emphasized the distinction between the firm&#039;s role as an auctioneer and a dealer, providing clarity on the taxation treatment of auction proceeds for similar entities in the future.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150523</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>