<?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 (10) TMI 470 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161242</link>
    <description>A seized business record containing day-to-day details of production, wash and molasses consumption, and rectified spirit output was treated as reliable evidence for best judgment assessment because it reflected the assessee&#039;s actual business activity. On that material, suppression of declared turnover was accepted, and the revised assessment was sustained with modification to the quantified turnover. Once suppression was established from the seized records and the returns were found incomplete and inaccurate, penalty for concealment was also upheld, subject to the Tribunal&#039;s reduction of the penalty quantum on a lenient factual appraisal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2014 16:43:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342366" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 470 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161242</link>
      <description>A seized business record containing day-to-day details of production, wash and molasses consumption, and rectified spirit output was treated as reliable evidence for best judgment assessment because it reflected the assessee&#039;s actual business activity. On that material, suppression of declared turnover was accepted, and the revised assessment was sustained with modification to the quantified turnover. Once suppression was established from the seized records and the returns were found incomplete and inaccurate, penalty for concealment was also upheld, subject to the Tribunal&#039;s reduction of the penalty quantum on a lenient factual appraisal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>