<?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 (12) TMI 892 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164819</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the Revenue failed to prove direct sales transactions by the assessee. The Court agreed that the assessee acted solely as a commission agent, forwarding orders to principals. The historical pattern of similar cases favored the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the tax case revision due to lack of merit for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354772" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 892 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164819</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the Revenue failed to prove direct sales transactions by the assessee. The Court agreed that the assessee acted solely as a commission agent, forwarding orders to principals. The historical pattern of similar cases favored the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the tax case revision due to lack of merit for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164819</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>