<?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>A case of un-necessary litigation (can also be regarded as frivolous case and abuse of process of law) in case before honorable Supreme Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. RAWMIN MINING AND INDUSTRIES P. LTD.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=13373</link>
    <description>The Revenue opened reassessment relying on the Justice M.B. Shah Commission report and alleged under invoicing, but the Assessing Officer neither rejected the assessee&#039;s audited books nor produced independent evidence; the Tribunal therefore held that additions could not be made solely on the tentative Commission report and deleted the addition. The High Court found no substantial question of law because the dispute turned on unchallenged factual findings and evidentiary insufficiency. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP for low tax effect, and a subsequent MA invoking an administrative circular relied on exceptions applicable only to specified law enforcement agencies, not to inquiry commissions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2025 09:57:37 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2025 09:57:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=790883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>A case of un-necessary litigation (can also be regarded as frivolous case and abuse of process of law) in case before honorable Supreme Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. RAWMIN MINING AND INDUSTRIES P. LTD.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=13373</link>
      <description>The Revenue opened reassessment relying on the Justice M.B. Shah Commission report and alleged under invoicing, but the Assessing Officer neither rejected the assessee&#039;s audited books nor produced independent evidence; the Tribunal therefore held that additions could not be made solely on the tentative Commission report and deleted the addition. The High Court found no substantial question of law because the dispute turned on unchallenged factual findings and evidentiary insufficiency. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP for low tax effect, and a subsequent MA invoking an administrative circular relied on exceptions applicable only to specified law enforcement agencies, not to inquiry commissions.</description>
      <category>Articles</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2025 09:57:37 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=13373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>