<?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>1995 (1) TMI 372 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158787</link>
    <description>A consolidated addition for alleged purchase and sales suppression was sustained where the Tribunal, as final fact-finding authority, had reassessed the inspection material, stock variation and estimated suppression and fixed a single turnover addition on that basis. The challenge to the quantum failed because no basis existed to disturb that factual determination. Penalty under section 12(3), however, was not justified, as the Tribunal found that only stock variation and estimate were shown and clear actual suppression had not been established with sufficient certainty. The cancellation of penalty was therefore upheld, leaving both the addition and penalty findings undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:06:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334815" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (1) TMI 372 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158787</link>
      <description>A consolidated addition for alleged purchase and sales suppression was sustained where the Tribunal, as final fact-finding authority, had reassessed the inspection material, stock variation and estimated suppression and fixed a single turnover addition on that basis. The challenge to the quantum failed because no basis existed to disturb that factual determination. Penalty under section 12(3), however, was not justified, as the Tribunal found that only stock variation and estimate were shown and clear actual suppression had not been established with sufficient certainty. The cancellation of penalty was therefore upheld, leaving both the addition and penalty findings undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158787</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>