<?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>2008 (5) TMI 740 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298772</link>
    <description>The High Court set aside the Tribunal and CIT(A)&#039;s orders upholding the rejection of books of account under s. 145(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The Court directed the CIT(A) to reassess the matter considering the consistent wastage percentage shown by the assessee over the years, accepted by the Department, and comparing it with figures from other industries. The decision favored the assessee, leading to a remittal for fresh consideration by the CIT(A) with both parties required to appear on a specified date.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:19:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=661574" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 740 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298772</link>
      <description>The High Court set aside the Tribunal and CIT(A)&#039;s orders upholding the rejection of books of account under s. 145(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The Court directed the CIT(A) to reassess the matter considering the consistent wastage percentage shown by the assessee over the years, accepted by the Department, and comparing it with figures from other industries. The decision favored the assessee, leading to a remittal for fresh consideration by the CIT(A) with both parties required to appear on a specified date.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>