<?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>2014 (8) TMI 616 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250666</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the Tribunal had to properly refer the legal question arising from the interaction of the Maharashtra Lease Tax Act and section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, where the characterization of transfer of technical know-how as a &quot;sale&quot; had not been conclusively decided. It directed the Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer the framed question of law on the validity of the Tribunal&#039;s prospective direction denying tax liability for transactions up to 31.3.2005. The Court also clarified that, if the question is decided against the respondent, its rights under section 52(1) would revive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2014 15:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 616 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250666</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the Tribunal had to properly refer the legal question arising from the interaction of the Maharashtra Lease Tax Act and section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, where the characterization of transfer of technical know-how as a &quot;sale&quot; had not been conclusively decided. It directed the Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer the framed question of law on the validity of the Tribunal&#039;s prospective direction denying tax liability for transactions up to 31.3.2005. The Court also clarified that, if the question is decided against the respondent, its rights under section 52(1) would revive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250666</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>