<?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>2012 (5) TMI 560 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167838</link>
    <description>Assessee&#039;s disclosure of brick sales, along with the application for compounding and late fee, supported the finding that brick manufacture and sale activity had occurred. The addition was made on estimation and was treated as a question of fact. The Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, upheld the assessment on the evidence available, and no legal infirmity was shown in that conclusion. Revision was therefore not warranted on the stated grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 22:09:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372946" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 560 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167838</link>
      <description>Assessee&#039;s disclosure of brick sales, along with the application for compounding and late fee, supported the finding that brick manufacture and sale activity had occurred. The addition was made on estimation and was treated as a question of fact. The Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, upheld the assessment on the evidence available, and no legal infirmity was shown in that conclusion. Revision was therefore not warranted on the stated grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>