<?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 (5) TMI 254 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247327</link>
    <description>The Court found errors by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in omitting relevant evidence and not acting as a fact-finding body. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reassessment by the Assessing Officer based on actual stock figures. The penalty was to be recalculated, excluding additional tax as it was not applicable for the relevant assessment year. The equal time addition and penalty were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 May 2014 12:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355170" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 254 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247327</link>
      <description>The Court found errors by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in omitting relevant evidence and not acting as a fact-finding body. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reassessment by the Assessing Officer based on actual stock figures. The penalty was to be recalculated, excluding additional tax as it was not applicable for the relevant assessment year. The equal time addition and penalty were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>