<?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>1996 (2) TMI 492 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158349</link>
    <description>Best judgment assessment based on a surprise inspection and detected suppression of turnover was held to be within the assessing authority&#039;s domain, and revisional interference was unwarranted absent arbitrariness, caprice, vindictiveness, or lack of bona fides. The inspection revealed unaccounted sales and stock discrepancies over 24 days, and the yearly estimate was drawn from that material with a rational nexus to the suppression found. Limited relief had already been granted at the appellate stage by reducing the multiplier after noticing duplication in the addition. The estimation was therefore treated as reasonable and supported by material, and the tax revision failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:37:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 492 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158349</link>
      <description>Best judgment assessment based on a surprise inspection and detected suppression of turnover was held to be within the assessing authority&#039;s domain, and revisional interference was unwarranted absent arbitrariness, caprice, vindictiveness, or lack of bona fides. The inspection revealed unaccounted sales and stock discrepancies over 24 days, and the yearly estimate was drawn from that material with a rational nexus to the suppression found. Limited relief had already been granted at the appellate stage by reducing the multiplier after noticing duplication in the addition. The estimation was therefore treated as reasonable and supported by material, and the tax revision failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158349</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>