<?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>1986 (11) TMI 357 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154769</link>
    <description>Books of account maintained on a Diwali-year basis could not be rejected for suppressions discovered in a later period, because a best-judgment assessment must have a rational nexus with the relevant assessment year. Where the only suppression relied upon arose from a slip relating to dates in April 1970, falling in the subsequent year, it could not justify rejecting the earlier year&#039;s accounts or enhancing turnover for assessment year 1969-70. The Tribunal was therefore correct to annul the enhancement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:02:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171800" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (11) TMI 357 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154769</link>
      <description>Books of account maintained on a Diwali-year basis could not be rejected for suppressions discovered in a later period, because a best-judgment assessment must have a rational nexus with the relevant assessment year. Where the only suppression relied upon arose from a slip relating to dates in April 1970, falling in the subsequent year, it could not justify rejecting the earlier year&#039;s accounts or enhancing turnover for assessment year 1969-70. The Tribunal was therefore correct to annul the enhancement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154769</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>