<?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>2014 (1) TMI 1380 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243165</link>
    <description>Reassessment under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is valid where the assessing authority has relevant material creating an objective and rational basis to believe turnover has escaped assessment. The expression &quot;reason to believe&quot; requires a nexus between the material and the belief, but the sanction order need not record elaborate reasons if it shows application of mind. On the facts, search material indicating substantial transactions with the assessee provided sufficient basis for reopening, and the assessee&#039;s objections to exemption-based tax liability were matters for assessment, not jurisdiction. The HC held the reassessment notices valid and found no ground for interference under Article 226.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2014 10:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=343780" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1380 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243165</link>
      <description>Reassessment under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is valid where the assessing authority has relevant material creating an objective and rational basis to believe turnover has escaped assessment. The expression &quot;reason to believe&quot; requires a nexus between the material and the belief, but the sanction order need not record elaborate reasons if it shows application of mind. On the facts, search material indicating substantial transactions with the assessee provided sufficient basis for reopening, and the assessee&#039;s objections to exemption-based tax liability were matters for assessment, not jurisdiction. The HC held the reassessment notices valid and found no ground for interference under Article 226.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243165</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>