<?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>1999 (1) TMI 505 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159742</link>
    <description>Toner and developer supplied with photocopiers were treated as separately dealt-with consumables, not spare parts or accessories, because the agreements and surrounding conduct showed they were not integral component parts of the machines. Rentals for photocopying machines were held taxable under the notification governing transfer of the right to use goods, at the rate applicable during the relevant period, and the later concession for plant and machinery did not apply retrospectively. The Anti-Evasion authority was found to have jurisdiction where under-collection and non-disclosure indicated evasion, and penalty was sustained because the statutory ingredients were met and no bona fide belief was shown, though the penalty was confined to the tax evaded and interest remained payable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:22:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337747" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (1) TMI 505 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159742</link>
      <description>Toner and developer supplied with photocopiers were treated as separately dealt-with consumables, not spare parts or accessories, because the agreements and surrounding conduct showed they were not integral component parts of the machines. Rentals for photocopying machines were held taxable under the notification governing transfer of the right to use goods, at the rate applicable during the relevant period, and the later concession for plant and machinery did not apply retrospectively. The Anti-Evasion authority was found to have jurisdiction where under-collection and non-disclosure indicated evasion, and penalty was sustained because the statutory ingredients were met and no bona fide belief was shown, though the penalty was confined to the tax evaded and interest remained payable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>