<?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>2010 (12) TMI 1032 - Gujarat High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209595</link>
    <description>Concurrent factual findings supported by invoices, duty-paid certificates, banking records, export evidence and agent confirmations were not shown to be perverse, so the additions for alleged bogus purchases and the disallowance of export commission were upheld as correctly deleted. The court also accepted that the commission was commercially deducted from export proceeds and had not accrued in full to the assessee. On the section 80HHC issue, the matter had been restored to the Assessing Officer on a consensual basis after the retrospective insertion of clause (iiid) to section 28, and no substantial question of law arose from that remand. Under section 260A, such evidence-based findings were not disturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183042" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 1032 - Gujarat High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209595</link>
      <description>Concurrent factual findings supported by invoices, duty-paid certificates, banking records, export evidence and agent confirmations were not shown to be perverse, so the additions for alleged bogus purchases and the disallowance of export commission were upheld as correctly deleted. The court also accepted that the commission was commercially deducted from export proceeds and had not accrued in full to the assessee. On the section 80HHC issue, the matter had been restored to the Assessing Officer on a consensual basis after the retrospective insertion of clause (iiid) to section 28, and no substantial question of law arose from that remand. Under section 260A, such evidence-based findings were not disturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209595</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>