<?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>1972 (12) TMI 34 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39037</link>
    <description>The Tribunal&#039;s revaluation of mica closing stock was upheld because crude mica was correctly treated as an input whose commercial end products were sheet mica, including block mica, films, splittings and rounds, while scrap or waste mica arising after processing was excluded from valuation. The method of valuing consumed crude mica together with processing expenses, and then valuing the finished products separately, was held commercially and legally sound. The Tribunal was also held to have no jurisdiction to grant relief beyond the subject-matter of the appeal: rectification of an arithmetical mistake could correct only an apparent error and allow consequential relief within the original dispute, not enlarge the appeal to grant additional relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:22:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=77583" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (12) TMI 34 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39037</link>
      <description>The Tribunal&#039;s revaluation of mica closing stock was upheld because crude mica was correctly treated as an input whose commercial end products were sheet mica, including block mica, films, splittings and rounds, while scrap or waste mica arising after processing was excluded from valuation. The method of valuing consumed crude mica together with processing expenses, and then valuing the finished products separately, was held commercially and legally sound. The Tribunal was also held to have no jurisdiction to grant relief beyond the subject-matter of the appeal: rectification of an arithmetical mistake could correct only an apparent error and allow consequential relief within the original dispute, not enlarge the appeal to grant additional relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39037</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>