<?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>1992 (8) TMI 266 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157579</link>
    <description>Recovered slips, credit chittai and sale bills were treated as evidence of real purchase and sale transactions rather than brokerage, because the proprietor&#039;s statement, the pattern of purchases and delayed sales, the absence of commission accounts, tax collection in some dealings and the scale of transactions all supported that conclusion. The Madras HC noted that concurrent factual findings by the assessing authority, first appellate authority and Tribunal will not be disturbed in revision absent patent legal error or perversity. On penalty, deliberate suppression of turnover and wilful concealment justified the levy, and the Tribunal&#039;s limited reduction was only an act of leniency.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2013 14:02:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (8) TMI 266 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157579</link>
      <description>Recovered slips, credit chittai and sale bills were treated as evidence of real purchase and sale transactions rather than brokerage, because the proprietor&#039;s statement, the pattern of purchases and delayed sales, the absence of commission accounts, tax collection in some dealings and the scale of transactions all supported that conclusion. The Madras HC noted that concurrent factual findings by the assessing authority, first appellate authority and Tribunal will not be disturbed in revision absent patent legal error or perversity. On penalty, deliberate suppression of turnover and wilful concealment justified the levy, and the Tribunal&#039;s limited reduction was only an act of leniency.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157579</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>