<?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 (10) TMI 564 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162228</link>
    <description>Where supply, erection, commissioning and trial production of machinery are covered by one consolidated and indivisible contract, the transaction is treated as a works contract rather than a sale of chattels. The court applied the settled test of whether the main object is transfer of property in goods as goods, or an undertaking for work and labour with materials and services used incidentally. On the Tribunal&#039;s findings, the contract and invoices showed a single composite price with no separate break-up, and site erection and commissioning were essential terms. C forms did not change the true character of the transaction. The reference was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:01:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346747" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 564 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162228</link>
      <description>Where supply, erection, commissioning and trial production of machinery are covered by one consolidated and indivisible contract, the transaction is treated as a works contract rather than a sale of chattels. The court applied the settled test of whether the main object is transfer of property in goods as goods, or an undertaking for work and labour with materials and services used incidentally. On the Tribunal&#039;s findings, the contract and invoices showed a single composite price with no separate break-up, and site erection and commissioning were essential terms. C forms did not change the true character of the transaction. The reference was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162228</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>