<?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 (9) TMI 519 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332258</link>
    <description>For levy of turnover tax under Section 6-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, amounts paid to sub-contractors for work they independently executed under a works contract were not includible in the main contractor&#039;s total turnover. Section 5-B and Rule 6(1)(c) limit turnover, in this context, to the consideration for transfer of property in goods involved in execution of the works contract by the taxable contractor. Including the same amount in the main contractor&#039;s turnover would treat the transfer as multiple deemed sales, contrary to Article 366(29A)(b). The SC followed the earlier Andhra Pradesh decision on identical facts and held in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 519 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332258</link>
      <description>For levy of turnover tax under Section 6-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, amounts paid to sub-contractors for work they independently executed under a works contract were not includible in the main contractor&#039;s total turnover. Section 5-B and Rule 6(1)(c) limit turnover, in this context, to the consideration for transfer of property in goods involved in execution of the works contract by the taxable contractor. Including the same amount in the main contractor&#039;s turnover would treat the transfer as multiple deemed sales, contrary to Article 366(29A)(b). The SC followed the earlier Andhra Pradesh decision on identical facts and held in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>