<?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>2003 (5) TMI 483 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161563</link>
    <description>Addition relating to alleged defects in furniture turnover was upheld because the assessee produced no material showing the findings were wrongly entered, and the Tribunal&#039;s limited relief did not justify interference. Exemption on sales of furniture to the Cochin Export Processing Zone was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration, since later notifications with wider language covering industrial inputs, plant and machinery had not been examined by the assessing or appellate authorities. Deduction of turnover for sales return was rejected because no supporting evidence was produced and no basis for interference was shown. The revision thus succeeded only to the extent of remand on the exemption issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 17:47:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344514" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 483 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161563</link>
      <description>Addition relating to alleged defects in furniture turnover was upheld because the assessee produced no material showing the findings were wrongly entered, and the Tribunal&#039;s limited relief did not justify interference. Exemption on sales of furniture to the Cochin Export Processing Zone was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration, since later notifications with wider language covering industrial inputs, plant and machinery had not been examined by the assessing or appellate authorities. Deduction of turnover for sales return was rejected because no supporting evidence was produced and no basis for interference was shown. The revision thus succeeded only to the extent of remand on the exemption issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161563</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>