<?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>1990 (8) TMI 351 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155963</link>
    <description>A court-permitted sale of machinery attached in execution against a business debt was treated as a sale in the course of business and remained taxable because the asset belonged to the assessee&#039;s business and the transaction was connected with that business. The attachment, the need for prior court permission, and the assessee&#039;s limited freedom in the mode of sale did not change its legal character. Under the relevant statutory definitions, a sale covers such transactions, and business includes acts incidental or ancillary to the business or its closure. The sale was therefore not a distress sale or casual sale outside the charging provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:25:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172990" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (8) TMI 351 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155963</link>
      <description>A court-permitted sale of machinery attached in execution against a business debt was treated as a sale in the course of business and remained taxable because the asset belonged to the assessee&#039;s business and the transaction was connected with that business. The attachment, the need for prior court permission, and the assessee&#039;s limited freedom in the mode of sale did not change its legal character. Under the relevant statutory definitions, a sale covers such transactions, and business includes acts incidental or ancillary to the business or its closure. The sale was therefore not a distress sale or casual sale outside the charging provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155963</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>