<?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>1990 (7) TMI 66 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23036</link>
    <description>Once the Tribunal rejected the assessee&#039;s books of account, the dispute over section 145 did not raise a referable question of law because section 145(2) applied in substance despite any reference to section 145(1). Challenges to the Tribunal&#039;s reliance on loose papers and its estimate of income were treated as factual matters, and the estimate was supported by material. No question of law arose under section 256(2), so reference was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:11:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (7) TMI 66 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23036</link>
      <description>Once the Tribunal rejected the assessee&#039;s books of account, the dispute over section 145 did not raise a referable question of law because section 145(2) applied in substance despite any reference to section 145(1). Challenges to the Tribunal&#039;s reliance on loose papers and its estimate of income were treated as factual matters, and the estimate was supported by material. No question of law arose under section 256(2), so reference was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23036</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>