https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160131 The court allowed the revision, ruling that the tax levy on the lease agreement for machinery and premises was improper. It emphasized that tax should only apply to the transfer of the right to use goods, not the goods themselves. The court clarified that when machinery is considered immovable property, tax liability does not arise. Additionally, in cases of composite agreements, if indivisible, they cannot be taxed in their entirety. The judgment highlights the significance of distinguishing between movable and immovable property in determining tax liability, aligning with established legal precedents. en-us Wed, 08 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:33:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160131 The court allowed the revision, ruling that the tax levy on the lease agreement for machinery and premises was improper. It emphasized that tax should only apply to the transfer of the right to use goods, not the goods themselves. The court clarified that when machinery is considered immovable property, tax liability does not arise. Additionally, in cases of composite agreements, if indivisible, they cannot be taxed in their entirety. The judgment highlights the significance of distinguishing between movable and immovable property in determining tax liability, aligning with established legal precedents. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 08 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160131