<?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>1928 (2) TMI 2 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184973</link>
    <description>Best judgment assessment under the Income-tax Act was treated as a quasi-judicial fact-finding exercise for the Income-tax Officer on the materials before him. The officer could reject oral evidence, make honest inspection and observation, and form a fair estimate of income, and that process was not open to review as a general appeal on evidence. As no departure from the statutory procedure was shown, the proposed issue was not a true question of law and notice was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 1928 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2016 18:17:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1928 (2) TMI 2 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184973</link>
      <description>Best judgment assessment under the Income-tax Act was treated as a quasi-judicial fact-finding exercise for the Income-tax Officer on the materials before him. The officer could reject oral evidence, make honest inspection and observation, and form a fair estimate of income, and that process was not open to review as a general appeal on evidence. As no departure from the statutory procedure was shown, the proposed issue was not a true question of law and notice was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 1928 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184973</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>