<?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>2007 (1) TMI 163 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30346</link>
    <description>Reliance on a departmental note from a subsequent assessment year was treated as permissible where it recorded that the value of steel rolls used exceeded the earlier estimate and was signed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Tribunal allowed lease-rental expenditure after giving weight to that departmental view despite the assessing officer&#039;s finding that acquisition costs had been inflated. The High Court found no unfairness or illegality in relying on the subsequent-year note, particularly because it considered the prior assessment erroneous. The Revenue&#039;s challenge, based on invoice prices and the confidential nature of the note, raised no substantive legal issue warranting interference, and its appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 163 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30346</link>
      <description>Reliance on a departmental note from a subsequent assessment year was treated as permissible where it recorded that the value of steel rolls used exceeded the earlier estimate and was signed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Tribunal allowed lease-rental expenditure after giving weight to that departmental view despite the assessing officer&#039;s finding that acquisition costs had been inflated. The High Court found no unfairness or illegality in relying on the subsequent-year note, particularly because it considered the prior assessment erroneous. The Revenue&#039;s challenge, based on invoice prices and the confidential nature of the note, raised no substantive legal issue warranting interference, and its appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30346</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>