<?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>2008 (1) TMI 848 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163549</link>
    <description>Rejection of the account books was upheld because the authorities relied not only on the absence of profit and loss account, cash book and ledger, but also on non-production at survey and discrepancies in stock, sales and firing period. Once the books were rejected, the disclosed selling rate and cash memos based on them were not conclusive, so the assessing authority could fix a higher selling rate on assessment material. However, the Tribunal&#039;s reasoning showed that the declared firing period of 94 days had been accepted, and the reference to 100 days was treated as an inadvertent error. The turnover was therefore to be recomputed on the basis of 94 firing days.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 09:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351187" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 848 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163549</link>
      <description>Rejection of the account books was upheld because the authorities relied not only on the absence of profit and loss account, cash book and ledger, but also on non-production at survey and discrepancies in stock, sales and firing period. Once the books were rejected, the disclosed selling rate and cash memos based on them were not conclusive, so the assessing authority could fix a higher selling rate on assessment material. However, the Tribunal&#039;s reasoning showed that the declared firing period of 94 days had been accepted, and the reference to 100 days was treated as an inadvertent error. The turnover was therefore to be recomputed on the basis of 94 firing days.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163549</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>