<?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>1991 (1) TMI 123 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22868</link>
    <description>Section 20 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act permits only correction of a mistake apparent from the record within the prescribed time; it does not allow the Tribunal to reopen an appeal, rehear the matter, or admit additional evidence to reconsider the merits. The Tribunal&#039;s finding that 4% of the return represented capital accumulation was a conscious conclusion based on the record and could not be treated as an obvious error amenable to rectification. Accordingly, the review petition and the petition for additional evidence were not maintainable and were dismissed, while ancillary instalment relief for payment of the determined amount was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:13:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61867" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (1) TMI 123 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22868</link>
      <description>Section 20 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act permits only correction of a mistake apparent from the record within the prescribed time; it does not allow the Tribunal to reopen an appeal, rehear the matter, or admit additional evidence to reconsider the merits. The Tribunal&#039;s finding that 4% of the return represented capital accumulation was a conscious conclusion based on the record and could not be treated as an obvious error amenable to rectification. Accordingly, the review petition and the petition for additional evidence were not maintainable and were dismissed, while ancillary instalment relief for payment of the determined amount was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>