<?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>2009 (10) TMI 853 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164488</link>
    <description>A lease of plant and machinery was treated as a taxable transfer of the right to use goods under the U.P. Trade Tax Act because the deeming provision fixed the place of sale in Uttar Pradesh where the goods were used, even if the lease deed was executed outside the State. The territorial fiction displaced reliance on the place of execution, and lease rent was therefore within the State&#039;s taxing jurisdiction. Non-disclosure of the rent receivable in the return also attracted penalty because taxable turnover had to be reported despite deferred or unpaid consideration, and the explanation that payment had not yet been received was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 853 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164488</link>
      <description>A lease of plant and machinery was treated as a taxable transfer of the right to use goods under the U.P. Trade Tax Act because the deeming provision fixed the place of sale in Uttar Pradesh where the goods were used, even if the lease deed was executed outside the State. The territorial fiction displaced reliance on the place of execution, and lease rent was therefore within the State&#039;s taxing jurisdiction. Non-disclosure of the rent receivable in the return also attracted penalty because taxable turnover had to be reported despite deferred or unpaid consideration, and the explanation that payment had not yet been received was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>