<?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>1969 (11) TMI 73 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149745</link>
    <description>Regularly maintained accounts cannot be rejected unless strong and sufficient reasons show that they are unreliable, incorrect, or incomplete, and rejection of accounts is distinct from making a best judgment assessment. Variation in electricity consumption by itself was not a safe basis to infer falsity or suppression, because output may fluctuate due to voltage conditions, machinery condition, and moisture content of copra. The department&#039;s own acceptance of consumption in the range of 10 to 12 units per quintal further weakened any inference of suppression. On these facts, rejection of the accounts was not legally justified and the assessee&#039;s accounts had to be accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 18:37:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166786" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (11) TMI 73 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149745</link>
      <description>Regularly maintained accounts cannot be rejected unless strong and sufficient reasons show that they are unreliable, incorrect, or incomplete, and rejection of accounts is distinct from making a best judgment assessment. Variation in electricity consumption by itself was not a safe basis to infer falsity or suppression, because output may fluctuate due to voltage conditions, machinery condition, and moisture content of copra. The department&#039;s own acceptance of consumption in the range of 10 to 12 units per quintal further weakened any inference of suppression. On these facts, rejection of the accounts was not legally justified and the assessee&#039;s accounts had to be accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149745</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>