<?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>1940 (9) TMI 17 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177556</link>
    <description>The proviso to section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 permits rejection of regularly kept accounts where the Income-tax Officer, on relevant material, forms a bona fide and non-arbitrary view that profits cannot properly be deduced from the books. Here, the gold transactions were unsupported by sufficient purchase details, verification of sellers was not possible, and the disclosed profits appeared improbable, so rejection of the book results for gold was justified. Separate treatment of silver transactions required no further notice because the assessee had already been heard on both commodities under earlier notices, and no prejudice was shown. The assessment procedure was therefore valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 1940 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:35:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412868" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1940 (9) TMI 17 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177556</link>
      <description>The proviso to section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 permits rejection of regularly kept accounts where the Income-tax Officer, on relevant material, forms a bona fide and non-arbitrary view that profits cannot properly be deduced from the books. Here, the gold transactions were unsupported by sufficient purchase details, verification of sellers was not possible, and the disclosed profits appeared improbable, so rejection of the book results for gold was justified. Separate treatment of silver transactions required no further notice because the assessee had already been heard on both commodities under earlier notices, and no prejudice was shown. The assessment procedure was therefore valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 1940 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177556</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>