<?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>1972 (9) TMI 131 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150473</link>
    <description>Best judgment turnover estimates must be supported by material and cannot rest on conjecture; the turnover fixed at Rs. 2,00,000 for each assessment year was held unjustified because the assumed basis had become erroneous and no other supporting material remained. On limitation, time spent pursuing a section 30 application to set aside ex parte assessment orders could not be excluded under section 14(2) of the Limitation Act because that remedy was simultaneous, sought different relief, and was decided on merits. The delay in filing the appeals was also not condonable under section 5 because no sufficient cause was shown on the basis of mistaken legal advice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 23 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 12:36:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167513" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (9) TMI 131 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150473</link>
      <description>Best judgment turnover estimates must be supported by material and cannot rest on conjecture; the turnover fixed at Rs. 2,00,000 for each assessment year was held unjustified because the assumed basis had become erroneous and no other supporting material remained. On limitation, time spent pursuing a section 30 application to set aside ex parte assessment orders could not be excluded under section 14(2) of the Limitation Act because that remedy was simultaneous, sought different relief, and was decided on merits. The delay in filing the appeals was also not condonable under section 5 because no sufficient cause was shown on the basis of mistaken legal advice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>