<?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>2004 (4) TMI 549 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162190</link>
    <description>A contract is taxable as a transfer of the right to use goods only if control, custody or possession of the machinery passes to the other party. Here, the mining and crane-service arrangements required the contractor to deploy its own machinery, labour, fuel, maintenance and operational support, while payment depended on work done and the other side only regulated execution for safety and measurement. As no effective control or possession of the equipment was handed over, the contracts were treated as works or service contracts rather than a letting of machinery for hire. Tax deduction under section 27 was therefore not attracted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:20:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346644" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 549 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162190</link>
      <description>A contract is taxable as a transfer of the right to use goods only if control, custody or possession of the machinery passes to the other party. Here, the mining and crane-service arrangements required the contractor to deploy its own machinery, labour, fuel, maintenance and operational support, while payment depended on work done and the other side only regulated execution for safety and measurement. As no effective control or possession of the equipment was handed over, the contracts were treated as works or service contracts rather than a letting of machinery for hire. Tax deduction under section 27 was therefore not attracted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162190</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>