<?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>1975 (5) TMI 29 - ITAT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68866</link>
    <description>Day-to-day stock records, vouched purchases and sales, and an explainable stock position were treated as sufficient to reject an estimated turnover addition based only on defects, absence of a separate stock inventory, and low gross profit. The composition scheme under section 7 was discussed as remaining available where the dealer had opted for it through the prescribed return and no valid revocation was shown, rather than being compulsorily shifted to section 3(1). Revolving tilting chair bases sold as components for further manufacture were analysed as parts of furniture, not finished furniture under Entry 128, so the classification-based levy was not supportable on that footing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 24 May 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Apr 2011 11:33:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107240" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (5) TMI 29 - ITAT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68866</link>
      <description>Day-to-day stock records, vouched purchases and sales, and an explainable stock position were treated as sufficient to reject an estimated turnover addition based only on defects, absence of a separate stock inventory, and low gross profit. The composition scheme under section 7 was discussed as remaining available where the dealer had opted for it through the prescribed return and no valid revocation was shown, rather than being compulsorily shifted to section 3(1). Revolving tilting chair bases sold as components for further manufacture were analysed as parts of furniture, not finished furniture under Entry 128, so the classification-based levy was not supportable on that footing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 24 May 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>