<?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>1994 (10) TMI 56 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19755</link>
    <description>The Tribunal&#039;s income estimate was treated as a factual determination based on the material on record, including the number of working days and receipt per day. Its reduction of the estimated daily receipt was supported by adequate reasons and was not shown to be perverse or based on surmise. As the issue concerned a factual estimate for the relevant year, no interference was warranted in reference jurisdiction and no reference was called for.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:10:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=58754" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (10) TMI 56 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19755</link>
      <description>The Tribunal&#039;s income estimate was treated as a factual determination based on the material on record, including the number of working days and receipt per day. Its reduction of the estimated daily receipt was supported by adequate reasons and was not shown to be perverse or based on surmise. As the issue concerned a factual estimate for the relevant year, no interference was warranted in reference jurisdiction and no reference was called for.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>