<?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>2013 (2) TMI 270 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220865</link>
    <description>Acceptance of disclosure under a voluntary disclosure scheme for earlier years must be given consequential effect in a later assessment year, and the declared stock, cash and sundry debtors may be treated as opening balances unless the Revenue shows sale, exhaustion or some other basis for cessation within a reasonable period. The Court applied the presumption of continuation to reject the view that the accepted disclosure could be ignored as involuntary. A separate claim for a further 5% reduction in stock value for damaged or outdated goods was held to be a factual question, and no general question of law arose on that point.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194226" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (2) TMI 270 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220865</link>
      <description>Acceptance of disclosure under a voluntary disclosure scheme for earlier years must be given consequential effect in a later assessment year, and the declared stock, cash and sundry debtors may be treated as opening balances unless the Revenue shows sale, exhaustion or some other basis for cessation within a reasonable period. The Court applied the presumption of continuation to reject the view that the accepted disclosure could be ignored as involuntary. A separate claim for a further 5% reduction in stock value for damaged or outdated goods was held to be a factual question, and no general question of law arose on that point.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>