<?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 (8) TMI 880 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165991</link>
    <description>Sale-cum-lease back transactions are taxed according to their real substance, not their form; where the surrounding facts show that the ostensible purchaser is only a financier, the consideration is inflated, the goods remain with the assessee, and the documents are used to raise funds, the arrangement is a financing device rather than a genuine sale and is not exigible to sales tax. Labour charges under a works contract are not taxable through the concession provision unless tax is otherwise payable under section 5B; absent that underlying liability, the levy does not arise. The Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld and the Revenue failed on both issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363530" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 880 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165991</link>
      <description>Sale-cum-lease back transactions are taxed according to their real substance, not their form; where the surrounding facts show that the ostensible purchaser is only a financier, the consideration is inflated, the goods remain with the assessee, and the documents are used to raise funds, the arrangement is a financing device rather than a genuine sale and is not exigible to sales tax. Labour charges under a works contract are not taxable through the concession provision unless tax is otherwise payable under section 5B; absent that underlying liability, the levy does not arise. The Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld and the Revenue failed on both issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165991</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>