<?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 (8) TMI 1188 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191815</link>
    <description>Composite underground cable-laying contracts involving trenching, road cutting, installation, commissioning, restoration and related civil works fall within the statutory definition of a works contract, rather than mere job work or labour supply. The dominant intention test does not apply where the contract contains works-contract elements. Tax must be deducted from payments to contractors for works-contract liability, and failure to deduct attracts penalty without proof of intent to evade. Where the payer does not provide material to bifurcate contract value or identify the taxable component, there is no basis to reduce the penalty on an assumed valuation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2018 13:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466753" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 1188 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191815</link>
      <description>Composite underground cable-laying contracts involving trenching, road cutting, installation, commissioning, restoration and related civil works fall within the statutory definition of a works contract, rather than mere job work or labour supply. The dominant intention test does not apply where the contract contains works-contract elements. Tax must be deducted from payments to contractors for works-contract liability, and failure to deduct attracts penalty without proof of intent to evade. Where the payer does not provide material to bifurcate contract value or identify the taxable component, there is no basis to reduce the penalty on an assumed valuation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>