<?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 (11) TMI 53 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238876</link>
    <description>Unsupported interference with concurrent factual findings on stock variation and suppressed purchases was held unwarranted. The record showed deficit stock, unaccounted inter-State purchases and recovered documents supporting the addition, while the Tribunal accepted the assessee&#039;s explanation without discussing the materials or giving reasons for rejecting the findings of the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal&#039;s deletion of the equal addition and reduction of the penalty was therefore not sustainable, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner&#039;s order was restored in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 53 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238876</link>
      <description>Unsupported interference with concurrent factual findings on stock variation and suppressed purchases was held unwarranted. The record showed deficit stock, unaccounted inter-State purchases and recovered documents supporting the addition, while the Tribunal accepted the assessee&#039;s explanation without discussing the materials or giving reasons for rejecting the findings of the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal&#039;s deletion of the equal addition and reduction of the penalty was therefore not sustainable, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner&#039;s order was restored in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>