<?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>2013 (2) TMI 656 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167830</link>
    <description>Undisclosed sales proved to be outside the books of account required rejection of the accounts as a necessary consequence and justified best judgment assessment, because the suppression showed that the recorded books did not reflect true turnover. The fact that the discrepancy was detected for only one month did not prevent the authority from sustaining additions for the full year, as similar suppression could reasonably be inferred in other months as well. Concurrent findings on concealed sales and the need for best judgment assessment raised no substantial question of law, and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Jan 2015 09:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372938" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (2) TMI 656 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167830</link>
      <description>Undisclosed sales proved to be outside the books of account required rejection of the accounts as a necessary consequence and justified best judgment assessment, because the suppression showed that the recorded books did not reflect true turnover. The fact that the discrepancy was detected for only one month did not prevent the authority from sustaining additions for the full year, as similar suppression could reasonably be inferred in other months as well. Concurrent findings on concealed sales and the need for best judgment assessment raised no substantial question of law, and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>