<?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>2015 (1) TMI 502 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255303</link>
    <description>A corporation constituted under a State Act was liable to deduct tax at source under section 35 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 on payments for hiring buses, because the provision applies to agreements transferring the right to use goods at the prescribed rate. Its status as such a body did not exempt it from the deduction obligation, and its own request for exemption from the tax regime supported that conclusion. The Tribunal had already reduced the penalty, and no substantial question of law was shown to warrant interference in revision. The liability to deduct tax at source was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2016 14:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 502 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255303</link>
      <description>A corporation constituted under a State Act was liable to deduct tax at source under section 35 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 on payments for hiring buses, because the provision applies to agreements transferring the right to use goods at the prescribed rate. Its status as such a body did not exempt it from the deduction obligation, and its own request for exemption from the tax regime supported that conclusion. The Tribunal had already reduced the penalty, and no substantial question of law was shown to warrant interference in revision. The liability to deduct tax at source was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255303</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>