https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302564 Revisional interference was refused because the Tribunal's view that the assessee's shift into refrigerators and PC monitors was one composite diversification exercise rested on evidence and not on perversity, absence of evidence, or disregard of relevant material. The Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is narrow and cannot disturb concurrent factual findings merely because another view is possible. Although the assessee bore the burden to prove single diversification for exemption, the Tribunal's appreciation of approval letters, disclosures, invoices, plant and machinery details, and production dates was upheld. The claim for exemption therefore remained undisturbed, and the revision failed on facts disguised as a question of law. en-us Tue, 27 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Sep 2022 15:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302564 Revisional interference was refused because the Tribunal's view that the assessee's shift into refrigerators and PC monitors was one composite diversification exercise rested on evidence and not on perversity, absence of evidence, or disregard of relevant material. The Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is narrow and cannot disturb concurrent factual findings merely because another view is possible. Although the assessee bore the burden to prove single diversification for exemption, the Tribunal's appreciation of approval letters, disclosures, invoices, plant and machinery details, and production dates was upheld. The claim for exemption therefore remained undisturbed, and the revision failed on facts disguised as a question of law. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 27 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302564