<?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>1982 (11) TMI 167 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154183</link>
    <description>Transfer of machinery to a private company in return for allotment of fully-paid shares was treated as a sale under section 2(n) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The arrangement was not a barter or exchange because the parties did not make mutual cross-transfers of property; allotment of shares merely satisfied the company&#039;s liability to pay the agreed price. The transaction was viewed as a sale for valuable consideration even though no cash passed, since the consideration consisted of discharge of reciprocal obligations. The contrary authority relied on by the assessee was held not to exclude such transactions from the concept of valuable consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2013 18:11:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171216" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (11) TMI 167 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154183</link>
      <description>Transfer of machinery to a private company in return for allotment of fully-paid shares was treated as a sale under section 2(n) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The arrangement was not a barter or exchange because the parties did not make mutual cross-transfers of property; allotment of shares merely satisfied the company&#039;s liability to pay the agreed price. The transaction was viewed as a sale for valuable consideration even though no cash passed, since the consideration consisted of discharge of reciprocal obligations. The contrary authority relied on by the assessee was held not to exclude such transactions from the concept of valuable consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154183</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>