<?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>1937 (11) TMI 4 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284994</link>
    <description>Section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 makes the assessee&#039;s regularly employed accounting method the normal basis of computation only where true income, profits and gains can be properly deduced from it. If the accounts do not disclose the true figures, the Income-tax Officer must examine the accounts and form a judgment under the proviso rather than treat the stated results as conclusive. Here, systematic undervaluation of stock meant the accounts did not reveal the true profits, so the lower authorities erred in assuming the regular method had to be accepted merely because it was consistently used. The question was answered in the negative and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 1937 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2019 15:01:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=597948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1937 (11) TMI 4 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284994</link>
      <description>Section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 makes the assessee&#039;s regularly employed accounting method the normal basis of computation only where true income, profits and gains can be properly deduced from it. If the accounts do not disclose the true figures, the Income-tax Officer must examine the accounts and form a judgment under the proviso rather than treat the stated results as conclusive. Here, systematic undervaluation of stock meant the accounts did not reveal the true profits, so the lower authorities erred in assuming the regular method had to be accepted merely because it was consistently used. The question was answered in the negative and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 1937 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284994</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>