<?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>1983 (10) TMI 23 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27706</link>
    <description>Standing crops carried from a composition year to a subsequent regular assessment year may be treated as opening stock where their value was not taxed during the composition year. The deduction of their value was therefore disallowable, and the Commissioner&#039;s addition was sustained. The reassessment provision concerning the year preceding an application for composition did not govern this revision. Revisional jurisdiction was exercised within the applicable three-year limitation period, calculated from the date of the assessment order revised. The assessment was validly revised and the taxpayer&#039;s challenge to the tax demand failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:21:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66704" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (10) TMI 23 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27706</link>
      <description>Standing crops carried from a composition year to a subsequent regular assessment year may be treated as opening stock where their value was not taxed during the composition year. The deduction of their value was therefore disallowable, and the Commissioner&#039;s addition was sustained. The reassessment provision concerning the year preceding an application for composition did not govern this revision. Revisional jurisdiction was exercised within the applicable three-year limitation period, calculated from the date of the assessment order revised. The assessment was validly revised and the taxpayer&#039;s challenge to the tax demand failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27706</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>