<?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>1990 (11) TMI 377 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156448</link>
    <description>Best judgment assessments based on alleged undervaluation require reliable, properly proved foundational material; unverified market-price data and an enquiry report without authenticated records or a dependable method of collection cannot support rejection of the returns or estimation under section 19B. The Tribunal also cannot uphold the assessments where additional evidence is received without recording reasons, identifying the scope of admission, or complying with the prescribed procedural safeguards for recording deposition. On the facts noted, the assessments were unsustainable, the Tribunal&#039;s affirmance was legally flawed, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:28:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173475" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (11) TMI 377 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156448</link>
      <description>Best judgment assessments based on alleged undervaluation require reliable, properly proved foundational material; unverified market-price data and an enquiry report without authenticated records or a dependable method of collection cannot support rejection of the returns or estimation under section 19B. The Tribunal also cannot uphold the assessments where additional evidence is received without recording reasons, identifying the scope of admission, or complying with the prescribed procedural safeguards for recording deposition. On the facts noted, the assessments were unsustainable, the Tribunal&#039;s affirmance was legally flawed, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>