<?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>2013 (6) TMI 668 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168942</link>
    <description>Supply, installation and commissioning of lifts/elevators was treated as a sale transaction, not a works contract, because the equipment was manufactured to specification, moved in semi-knocked down condition and installed at the customer&#039;s site; the binding Supreme Court ruling in Kone Elevators governed until displaced, so the transaction remained taxable as sale. The claim to exclude annual maintenance charges from turnover was not entertained because it had not been specifically pleaded or founded before the lower authorities as a distinct deduction. The penalty arising from reopening and reassessment was also sustained, since the reassessment stood on the sale characterisation and no separate ground justified interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2015 19:58:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380694" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 668 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168942</link>
      <description>Supply, installation and commissioning of lifts/elevators was treated as a sale transaction, not a works contract, because the equipment was manufactured to specification, moved in semi-knocked down condition and installed at the customer&#039;s site; the binding Supreme Court ruling in Kone Elevators governed until displaced, so the transaction remained taxable as sale. The claim to exclude annual maintenance charges from turnover was not entertained because it had not been specifically pleaded or founded before the lower authorities as a distinct deduction. The penalty arising from reopening and reassessment was also sustained, since the reassessment stood on the sale characterisation and no separate ground justified interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168942</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>