<?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>2016 (5) TMI 497 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327516</link>
    <description>A concessional tax notification for contracts relating to construction of buildings was held to apply strictly, so specialized work of fabricating and fixing glass curtain walls on an already planned or existing structure did not fall within that expression. The court reasoned that such activity was not itself construction of a building, and the broader definition of &quot;building&quot; in a different regulatory context could not be imported into the notification. The alternative argument that the work was incidental or ancillary also failed because it lacked a direct nexus with the construction of the building itself. The contract was therefore outside both relevant notification categories.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=427890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 497 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327516</link>
      <description>A concessional tax notification for contracts relating to construction of buildings was held to apply strictly, so specialized work of fabricating and fixing glass curtain walls on an already planned or existing structure did not fall within that expression. The court reasoned that such activity was not itself construction of a building, and the broader definition of &quot;building&quot; in a different regulatory context could not be imported into the notification. The alternative argument that the work was incidental or ancillary also failed because it lacked a direct nexus with the construction of the building itself. The contract was therefore outside both relevant notification categories.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327516</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>