<?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>1985 (1) TMI 5 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25913</link>
    <description>Allowance of sole selling agency commission depended on the Tribunal&#039;s factual appreciation, so no independent question of law arose and the issue was not fit for reference. Closing stock was to be carried forward at cost or market price, whichever was lower; because the post-year-end levy sugar price was lower from 1 July 1972, valuation at the lower rate correctly reflected realizable value. The Tribunal&#039;s view on stock valuation was therefore upheld, and no referable question of law arose on either issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:14:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (1) TMI 5 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25913</link>
      <description>Allowance of sole selling agency commission depended on the Tribunal&#039;s factual appreciation, so no independent question of law arose and the issue was not fit for reference. Closing stock was to be carried forward at cost or market price, whichever was lower; because the post-year-end levy sugar price was lower from 1 July 1972, valuation at the lower rate correctly reflected realizable value. The Tribunal&#039;s view on stock valuation was therefore upheld, and no referable question of law arose on either issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25913</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>