<?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>2014 (10) TMI 908 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184478</link>
    <description>A distinct and functionally independent business division transferred as a running concern may qualify as a sale of business as a whole under Explanation III to Section 2(41) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Court rejected the view that exemption is confined only to transfer of the dealer&#039;s entire enterprise, and held that continuation of other business activities does not by itself defeat the exemption where the transferred unit is a separate business unit. The windmill division transfer was therefore treated as exempt from turnover, and the corresponding assessment was interfered with in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=434543" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 908 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184478</link>
      <description>A distinct and functionally independent business division transferred as a running concern may qualify as a sale of business as a whole under Explanation III to Section 2(41) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Court rejected the view that exemption is confined only to transfer of the dealer&#039;s entire enterprise, and held that continuation of other business activities does not by itself defeat the exemption where the transferred unit is a separate business unit. The windmill division transfer was therefore treated as exempt from turnover, and the corresponding assessment was interfered with in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184478</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>