<?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 849 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163553</link>
    <description>Concurrent findings that the dealer had not installed machinery or equipment to process crude mentha oil into a different product were upheld, as the material showed only a difference in strength between purchase and export documents and not manufacture of a new product. The Tribunal&#039;s acceptance of the account books was also sustained because the seized documents were verifiable from the dealer&#039;s own records, making their rejection unsustainable. As no infirmity was shown in these factual findings and no substantial question of law arose, revisionary interference was declined and the assessee&#039;s success before the Tribunal remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2014 12:57:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351191" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 849 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163553</link>
      <description>Concurrent findings that the dealer had not installed machinery or equipment to process crude mentha oil into a different product were upheld, as the material showed only a difference in strength between purchase and export documents and not manufacture of a new product. The Tribunal&#039;s acceptance of the account books was also sustained because the seized documents were verifiable from the dealer&#039;s own records, making their rejection unsustainable. As no infirmity was shown in these factual findings and no substantial question of law arose, revisionary interference was declined and the assessee&#039;s success before the Tribunal remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>