<?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>2010 (5) TMI 764 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164462</link>
    <description>Transfer of a motorcar by a partnership firm to a partner on dissolution was held not to be a sale under Section 2(28) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Court reasoned that a partnership firm is not a distinct legal entity from its partners for the purpose of its assets, and that distribution of assets on dissolution is only an adjustment of mutual rights through allotment of jointly held property. Because the transfer was made in lieu of the partner&#039;s share in the partnership assets, and not by way of a transaction between distinct parties for valuable consideration, sales tax could not be levied. The reference was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 16:33:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 764 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164462</link>
      <description>Transfer of a motorcar by a partnership firm to a partner on dissolution was held not to be a sale under Section 2(28) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Court reasoned that a partnership firm is not a distinct legal entity from its partners for the purpose of its assets, and that distribution of assets on dissolution is only an adjustment of mutual rights through allotment of jointly held property. Because the transfer was made in lieu of the partner&#039;s share in the partnership assets, and not by way of a transaction between distinct parties for valuable consideration, sales tax could not be levied. The reference was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164462</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>