<?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>1990 (3) TMI 108 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60850</link>
    <description>Entries in statutory gold control registers for jewellery received for polishing, repairs or remodelling could not, without contrary evidence, be treated as proof of purchase and sale by the dealer. On the evidence of vouchers, affidavits and statements, the jewellery was received from identified persons and, in some cases, returned after remodelling with added gold, so the addition based on alleged purchases and sales was unsustainable. A consistently followed method of valuing closing jewellery stock at cost, already accepted in earlier years, also could not be displaced merely because the department preferred a different valuation. Both additions were therefore deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Jan 2011 13:05:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99297" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (3) TMI 108 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60850</link>
      <description>Entries in statutory gold control registers for jewellery received for polishing, repairs or remodelling could not, without contrary evidence, be treated as proof of purchase and sale by the dealer. On the evidence of vouchers, affidavits and statements, the jewellery was received from identified persons and, in some cases, returned after remodelling with added gold, so the addition based on alleged purchases and sales was unsustainable. A consistently followed method of valuing closing jewellery stock at cost, already accepted in earlier years, also could not be displaced merely because the department preferred a different valuation. Both additions were therefore deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>