<?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>2025 (4) TMI 563 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768649</link>
    <description>Rejection of books of account and best judgment assessment based solely on survey findings and eye estimation of stock was held unsustainable. The court noted that, under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, assessment must rest on credible material, and visual approximation of stock without actual weighment does not satisfy that standard. Because the books were disbelieved only on the basis of such estimation, the assessment orders were contrary to the settled legal position. The revision was accordingly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2025 08:39:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=813527" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 563 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768649</link>
      <description>Rejection of books of account and best judgment assessment based solely on survey findings and eye estimation of stock was held unsustainable. The court noted that, under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, assessment must rest on credible material, and visual approximation of stock without actual weighment does not satisfy that standard. Because the books were disbelieved only on the basis of such estimation, the assessment orders were contrary to the settled legal position. The revision was accordingly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768649</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>