<?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>2017 (8) TMI 1426 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274004</link>
    <description>Genuineness of rice bran purchases was treated as a pure question of fact, because the appellate findings showed supply by the concerned persons through their firms and payment traceable to the same persons through bank accounts. The Tribunal accepted those findings, and the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from that factual appreciation. The conclusion that the purchases were not bogus was therefore upheld on the factual record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2018 10:00:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=528069" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1426 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274004</link>
      <description>Genuineness of rice bran purchases was treated as a pure question of fact, because the appellate findings showed supply by the concerned persons through their firms and payment traceable to the same persons through bank accounts. The Tribunal accepted those findings, and the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from that factual appreciation. The conclusion that the purchases were not bogus was therefore upheld on the factual record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274004</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>