<?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>1977 (11) TMI 122 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151490</link>
    <description>A building contractor who buys and consumes construction materials in executing building contracts falls within the definition of &quot;dealer&quot; under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, and such purchases are treated as made in the course of business. Ordinary construction-material purchases were therefore treated as business purchases, while goods that are merely ancillary to the business or form part of capital assets were excluded from that category. The separate character of scaffolding materials was left for further consideration, because the Tribunal had not examined whether they were capital assets or capital goods. Registration obtained on the contractor&#039;s own application was not separately in issue once dealer status was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2013 16:02:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168528" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (11) TMI 122 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151490</link>
      <description>A building contractor who buys and consumes construction materials in executing building contracts falls within the definition of &quot;dealer&quot; under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, and such purchases are treated as made in the course of business. Ordinary construction-material purchases were therefore treated as business purchases, while goods that are merely ancillary to the business or form part of capital assets were excluded from that category. The separate character of scaffolding materials was left for further consideration, because the Tribunal had not examined whether they were capital assets or capital goods. Registration obtained on the contractor&#039;s own application was not separately in issue once dealer status was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151490</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>