<?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>1999 (5) TMI 577 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128873</link>
    <description>Books of account may be rejected where revised returns are filed belatedly after seizure, supporting bills are absent, and duplicate records and credit notes remain unexplained; however, a best judgment estimate of turnover must still rest on objective material and disclosed reasoning. On the facts discussed, the books rejection was upheld, but the sharp enhancement of turnover failed because the assessment did not identify the data, prior figures, or business material used. Repeated adjournments and 38 opportunities were treated as adequate appellate hearing, so no procedural unfairness was found. The assessment and appellate orders were set aside and remitted for fresh determination on available materials, including credit notes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:06:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 577 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128873</link>
      <description>Books of account may be rejected where revised returns are filed belatedly after seizure, supporting bills are absent, and duplicate records and credit notes remain unexplained; however, a best judgment estimate of turnover must still rest on objective material and disclosed reasoning. On the facts discussed, the books rejection was upheld, but the sharp enhancement of turnover failed because the assessment did not identify the data, prior figures, or business material used. Repeated adjournments and 38 opportunities were treated as adequate appellate hearing, so no procedural unfairness was found. The assessment and appellate orders were set aside and remitted for fresh determination on available materials, including credit notes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>