<?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>2015 (3) TMI 341 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257405</link>
    <description>The Bombay HC held that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal&#039;s factual findings on the nature of the transactions and the adequacy of opportunity. The Tribunal had examined the agreements, invoices and surrounding materials and found that the dealings were local sales in Maharashtra under a principal-agent arrangement. The Court noted that notices had been served and that the assessee had opportunities at the assessment and appellate stages, so the attempt was only to re-appreciate evidence already considered. As the challenge concerned concurrent findings of fact and disclosed no legal error or perversity, the reference applications were rejected and the tax findings were left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2015 07:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 341 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257405</link>
      <description>The Bombay HC held that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal&#039;s factual findings on the nature of the transactions and the adequacy of opportunity. The Tribunal had examined the agreements, invoices and surrounding materials and found that the dealings were local sales in Maharashtra under a principal-agent arrangement. The Court noted that notices had been served and that the assessee had opportunities at the assessment and appellate stages, so the attempt was only to re-appreciate evidence already considered. As the challenge concerned concurrent findings of fact and disclosed no legal error or perversity, the reference applications were rejected and the tax findings were left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>