<?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 (6) TMI 57 - ITAT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68893</link>
    <description>Circulation scheme receipts were held not to constitute taxable sales under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act because a sale requires transfer of property for money consideration; the disputed turnover from that scheme was therefore not liable to tax. Additions for suppressed turnover were sustained because inspection material and connected accounts showed unrecorded transactions, and the branch-transfer and return explanations lacked documentary support. The penalty, though justified by concealment, was moderated because penalty under fiscal law is not automatic and must be imposed judicially on the surrounding circumstances. The Revenue&#039;s enhancement petition failed as no fresh material supported restoration of the assessing authority&#039;s figures.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Apr 2011 12:25:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107267" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (6) TMI 57 - ITAT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68893</link>
      <description>Circulation scheme receipts were held not to constitute taxable sales under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act because a sale requires transfer of property for money consideration; the disputed turnover from that scheme was therefore not liable to tax. Additions for suppressed turnover were sustained because inspection material and connected accounts showed unrecorded transactions, and the branch-transfer and return explanations lacked documentary support. The penalty, though justified by concealment, was moderated because penalty under fiscal law is not automatic and must be imposed judicially on the surrounding circumstances. The Revenue&#039;s enhancement petition failed as no fresh material supported restoration of the assessing authority&#039;s figures.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68893</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>