<?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>1970 (11) TMI 86 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149990</link>
    <description>A revisional power confined to examining the &quot;legality or propriety&quot; of an order was held wide enough to permit interference with an erroneous factual finding recorded by an appellate authority on the material before it. The Commissioner could therefore reappraise the record and reverse the factual conclusion where it was wrong. The question was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 15:27:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (11) TMI 86 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149990</link>
      <description>A revisional power confined to examining the &quot;legality or propriety&quot; of an order was held wide enough to permit interference with an erroneous factual finding recorded by an appellate authority on the material before it. The Commissioner could therefore reappraise the record and reverse the factual conclusion where it was wrong. The question was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149990</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>