<?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>1993 (1) TMI 267 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157226</link>
    <description>In a best judgment assessment, the quantum of turnover estimation is primarily for the final fact-finding authority, and revision lies only where the estimate is vitiated by ignoring material evidence, considering irrelevant factors, or reaching a perverse or irrational conclusion. The Tribunal examined stock variation, business locality, competition, prior assessments and surrounding circumstances, and gave reasons for rejecting the running-stock method as the sole basis. It adopted a 100 per cent addition to returned turnover as a reasonable estimate, and the revisional court found no illegality or perversity and declined interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 18:07:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (1) TMI 267 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157226</link>
      <description>In a best judgment assessment, the quantum of turnover estimation is primarily for the final fact-finding authority, and revision lies only where the estimate is vitiated by ignoring material evidence, considering irrelevant factors, or reaching a perverse or irrational conclusion. The Tribunal examined stock variation, business locality, competition, prior assessments and surrounding circumstances, and gave reasons for rejecting the running-stock method as the sole basis. It adopted a 100 per cent addition to returned turnover as a reasonable estimate, and the revisional court found no illegality or perversity and declined interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>