<?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 (5) TMI 462 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259588</link>
    <description>A 1% turnover discount granted through credit notes was held deductible from taxable turnover because it formed part of the sale price as a trade discount, even though adjusted after invoicing. The court distinguished incentive or bonus schemes that do not reduce consideration and accepted that a discount embedded in the ordinary course of trade may be excluded from turnover. On inter-State sales, the movement of goods from Haryana to Delhi was not shown to have been occasioned by a prior contract of sale, and the assessee&#039;s own records and Form F supported a branch transfer position. The later sale in Delhi did not by itself make the movement an inter-State sale.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384909" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 462 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259588</link>
      <description>A 1% turnover discount granted through credit notes was held deductible from taxable turnover because it formed part of the sale price as a trade discount, even though adjusted after invoicing. The court distinguished incentive or bonus schemes that do not reduce consideration and accepted that a discount embedded in the ordinary course of trade may be excluded from turnover. On inter-State sales, the movement of goods from Haryana to Delhi was not shown to have been occasioned by a prior contract of sale, and the assessee&#039;s own records and Form F supported a branch transfer position. The later sale in Delhi did not by itself make the movement an inter-State sale.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259588</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>