<?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>1997 (7) TMI 622 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159331</link>
    <description>In a best judgment assessment, rejected books may be supported by cogent material showing suppression, and electricity consumption may be used only as a corroborative factor for estimating taxable turnover. The court accepted extrapolation from detected suppression over a three-month period to the full financial year, holding that a rational estimate with a reasonable nexus to discovered facts is permissible. However, where the assessee raised a specific claim for deduction on sales to a registered dealer, the Tribunal was bound to decide it expressly; its omission was an error in law. The turnover enhancement was upheld, while the deduction issue required reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:40:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336318" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 622 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159331</link>
      <description>In a best judgment assessment, rejected books may be supported by cogent material showing suppression, and electricity consumption may be used only as a corroborative factor for estimating taxable turnover. The court accepted extrapolation from detected suppression over a three-month period to the full financial year, holding that a rational estimate with a reasonable nexus to discovered facts is permissible. However, where the assessee raised a specific claim for deduction on sales to a registered dealer, the Tribunal was bound to decide it expressly; its omission was an error in law. The turnover enhancement was upheld, while the deduction issue required reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159331</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>