<?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 (1) TMI 1122 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164574</link>
    <description>Freight and cartage charges were includible in turnover where the rail contract required the contractor to bear those charges, because the contractual stipulation made them part of the amounts received in the transaction. Rectified Form IIID evidence should not have been rejected without examining the corrected material on its merits, so the matter was remanded for verification of the genuineness of the revised forms. An account-keeping provision framed for manufacturers could not be applied to a railway contractor who was not engaged in manufacturing activity, so the manufacturer-based compliance finding was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354084" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 1122 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164574</link>
      <description>Freight and cartage charges were includible in turnover where the rail contract required the contractor to bear those charges, because the contractual stipulation made them part of the amounts received in the transaction. Rectified Form IIID evidence should not have been rejected without examining the corrected material on its merits, so the matter was remanded for verification of the genuineness of the revised forms. An account-keeping provision framed for manufacturers could not be applied to a railway contractor who was not engaged in manufacturing activity, so the manufacturer-based compliance finding was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164574</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>