<?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>1996 (5) TMI 11 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16985</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision in an income-tax case involving the interpretation of section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the Assessing Officer&#039;s application of a varying gross profit rate to determine undisclosed income was improper. It emphasized that a consistent average gross profit rate should be applied and that section 69B can only be invoked under specific conditions, which were not met in this case. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the Assessing Officer&#039;s methodology was flawed and that section 69B was not justified in this scenario.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:48:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 11 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16985</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision in an income-tax case involving the interpretation of section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the Assessing Officer&#039;s application of a varying gross profit rate to determine undisclosed income was improper. It emphasized that a consistent average gross profit rate should be applied and that section 69B can only be invoked under specific conditions, which were not met in this case. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the Assessing Officer&#039;s methodology was flawed and that section 69B was not justified in this scenario.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16985</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>