<?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>2003 (10) TMI 629 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162437</link>
    <description>Under an F.O.R. destination contract, freight deducted from invoices was treated as outside taxable turnover where the seller&#039;s responsibility ended on delivery to the carrier, the freight was not payable by the seller, and no freight amount was received from customers. The article also notes that rejection of the books of account for the assessment year in question was held unwarranted because the adverse inference from one chalan discrepancy was unsupported by the record, with the relevant bill issued and the entry made in the books. The revisions therefore failed on both issues, and the Tribunal&#039;s findings were left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:15:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347369" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 629 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162437</link>
      <description>Under an F.O.R. destination contract, freight deducted from invoices was treated as outside taxable turnover where the seller&#039;s responsibility ended on delivery to the carrier, the freight was not payable by the seller, and no freight amount was received from customers. The article also notes that rejection of the books of account for the assessment year in question was held unwarranted because the adverse inference from one chalan discrepancy was unsupported by the record, with the relevant bill issued and the entry made in the books. The revisions therefore failed on both issues, and the Tribunal&#039;s findings were left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>