<?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>1957 (9) TMI 39 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127727</link>
    <description>A tax assessment is not vitiated by a merely technical defect in the notice where no prejudice is shown; the assessee&#039;s appearance and participation before the assessing authority supported validity of the proceeding. On the merits, section 8 and licence condition 3 were construed to allow exemption for commission or brokerage transactions carried on for known principals and properly reflected in the accounts, and the existence of a common daybook or other taxable dealings did not by itself defeat that exemption. The revisional power under rule 17 was confined to turnover that had escaped assessment, so it could not be used to withdraw exemption from buying-agency turnover already assessed and expressly exempted; the revision was therefore void.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:36:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (9) TMI 39 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127727</link>
      <description>A tax assessment is not vitiated by a merely technical defect in the notice where no prejudice is shown; the assessee&#039;s appearance and participation before the assessing authority supported validity of the proceeding. On the merits, section 8 and licence condition 3 were construed to allow exemption for commission or brokerage transactions carried on for known principals and properly reflected in the accounts, and the existence of a common daybook or other taxable dealings did not by itself defeat that exemption. The revisional power under rule 17 was confined to turnover that had escaped assessment, so it could not be used to withdraw exemption from buying-agency turnover already assessed and expressly exempted; the revision was therefore void.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127727</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>