<?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>2007 (9) TMI 590 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163827</link>
    <description>Deduction at source under section 8D(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act applied only where payment was made towards consideration payable for transfer of property in goods under a works contract; advance payment made before such transfer did not satisfy that charging condition. The contractor&#039;s order under the compounding or deduction arrangement for deduction at one per cent was treated as operating retrospectively, so the lower deduction rate was not contrary to law on the facts found. The finding of bona fide belief and absence of deliberate default was one of fact, and deletion of penalty under section 8D(6) was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Dec 2014 20:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 590 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163827</link>
      <description>Deduction at source under section 8D(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act applied only where payment was made towards consideration payable for transfer of property in goods under a works contract; advance payment made before such transfer did not satisfy that charging condition. The contractor&#039;s order under the compounding or deduction arrangement for deduction at one per cent was treated as operating retrospectively, so the lower deduction rate was not contrary to law on the facts found. The finding of bona fide belief and absence of deliberate default was one of fact, and deletion of penalty under section 8D(6) was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>