<?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>2023 (12) TMI 838 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447154</link>
    <description>An agreement for bug fixing, maintenance and support of ERP software was held to be a contract of service rather than a sale of software under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The work was limited to providing manpower and maintenance on the client&#039;s servers, with remuneration calculated per person per month, and did not involve transfer of ready-made or marketable software. Because all work products and materials became the client&#039;s exclusive property from inception, and no independent ownership or right of sale arose, the arrangement merely restored existing software functionality and did not create a new commercial commodity. The authorities were therefore wrong to treat the transaction as exigible sale.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 17:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=735743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 838 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447154</link>
      <description>An agreement for bug fixing, maintenance and support of ERP software was held to be a contract of service rather than a sale of software under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The work was limited to providing manpower and maintenance on the client&#039;s servers, with remuneration calculated per person per month, and did not involve transfer of ready-made or marketable software. Because all work products and materials became the client&#039;s exclusive property from inception, and no independent ownership or right of sale arose, the arrangement merely restored existing software functionality and did not create a new commercial commodity. The authorities were therefore wrong to treat the transaction as exigible sale.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>