<?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>1976 (9) TMI 61 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62644</link>
    <description>Best judgment assessment under section 11(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, applied through rule 32 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, requires a finding that the returns are incorrect or incomplete before books of account can be rejected. Mere fall in turnover compared with the previous year is not enough without positive material showing suppression of sales or another cogent defect in the accounts. Where the dealer produced material explaining the decline in business and showing similar downturns in the trade, rejection of accounts and the resulting enhancement were not justified, and the addition made by the tax authorities was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 18 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=101090" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (9) TMI 61 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62644</link>
      <description>Best judgment assessment under section 11(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, applied through rule 32 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, requires a finding that the returns are incorrect or incomplete before books of account can be rejected. Mere fall in turnover compared with the previous year is not enough without positive material showing suppression of sales or another cogent defect in the accounts. Where the dealer produced material explaining the decline in business and showing similar downturns in the trade, rejection of accounts and the resulting enhancement were not justified, and the addition made by the tax authorities was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 18 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62644</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>