<?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>1976 (5) TMI 90 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151150</link>
    <description>Mere non-compliance with a prescribed account-keeping rule does not, by itself, justify rejection of accounts or best judgment assessment; that step is sustainable only where the accounts are unintelligible or otherwise prevent the assessing authority from determining the nature and quantum of business. On the tax classification issue, spare parts of motor vehicles fell within the notification, and the assessee had to show that the goods were ordinarily used for purposes other than motor vehicle parts. As no such evidence was produced, the goods were treated as taxable motor parts. The reference thus succeeded on the account-rejection issue and failed on the classification issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 May 2013 16:20:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168189" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (5) TMI 90 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151150</link>
      <description>Mere non-compliance with a prescribed account-keeping rule does not, by itself, justify rejection of accounts or best judgment assessment; that step is sustainable only where the accounts are unintelligible or otherwise prevent the assessing authority from determining the nature and quantum of business. On the tax classification issue, spare parts of motor vehicles fell within the notification, and the assessee had to show that the goods were ordinarily used for purposes other than motor vehicle parts. As no such evidence was produced, the goods were treated as taxable motor parts. The reference thus succeeded on the account-rejection issue and failed on the classification issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151150</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>