<?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>2006 (10) TMI 498 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281479</link>
    <description>Lease rent received on the transfer of the right to use machinery was held taxable under Section 3-F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act read with Article 366(29-A)(d), because the taxable event arose when the lease agreement transferred that right and the machinery was already in Uttar Pradesh and available for delivery. A prior letter of intent was treated only as a preliminary understanding and did not itself effect the transfer. The transaction was not shown to be an inter-State sale under Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, so the State&#039;s taxing power was not excluded. The revisions were dismissed and the levy was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=575928" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 498 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281479</link>
      <description>Lease rent received on the transfer of the right to use machinery was held taxable under Section 3-F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act read with Article 366(29-A)(d), because the taxable event arose when the lease agreement transferred that right and the machinery was already in Uttar Pradesh and available for delivery. A prior letter of intent was treated only as a preliminary understanding and did not itself effect the transfer. The transaction was not shown to be an inter-State sale under Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, so the State&#039;s taxing power was not excluded. The revisions were dismissed and the levy was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>