<?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>1964 (10) TMI 79 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=140047</link>
    <description>Where a dealer&#039;s liability had already commenced and the material on record was sufficient, the appellate authority could decide the sales tax matter without remand, acting within its appellate powers under the sales tax law. In a best judgment assessment, where sales accounts were not maintained, turnover could be estimated by applying a reasonable profit margin to admitted purchases; the addition of 20 per cent as profit was treated as a permissible factual estimate on the circumstances. The Tribunal&#039;s approach on both liability and profit estimation was upheld, and the reference was answered against the dealer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:15:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165987" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (10) TMI 79 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=140047</link>
      <description>Where a dealer&#039;s liability had already commenced and the material on record was sufficient, the appellate authority could decide the sales tax matter without remand, acting within its appellate powers under the sales tax law. In a best judgment assessment, where sales accounts were not maintained, turnover could be estimated by applying a reasonable profit margin to admitted purchases; the addition of 20 per cent as profit was treated as a permissible factual estimate on the circumstances. The Tribunal&#039;s approach on both liability and profit estimation was upheld, and the reference was answered against the dealer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=140047</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>