<?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>2012 (7) TMI 855 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167674</link>
    <description>An additional payment made under a later agreement to speed completion of the same works contract was treated as part of the contractual consideration, not as a separate hiring arrangement. Because the later agreement was only an integral extension of the original undertaking, the amount paid for cranes and extra equipment remained connected with execution of the works contract. Accordingly, once composition was opted for, tax applied to the total consideration received for the contract, and the amount could not be excluded merely because it was separately described. The contrary view that it fell outside the works contract turnover was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2015 11:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 855 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167674</link>
      <description>An additional payment made under a later agreement to speed completion of the same works contract was treated as part of the contractual consideration, not as a separate hiring arrangement. Because the later agreement was only an integral extension of the original undertaking, the amount paid for cranes and extra equipment remained connected with execution of the works contract. Accordingly, once composition was opted for, tax applied to the total consideration received for the contract, and the amount could not be excluded merely because it was separately described. The contrary view that it fell outside the works contract turnover was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167674</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>