<?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>2003 (6) TMI 179 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61561</link>
    <description>Income validly disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 could not be treated as ordinary taxable income in reassessment, so it had to be excluded from the assessed total income. However, that exclusion did not justify annulling the reassessment itself, as the proper consequence was only deletion of the disclosed amount. On low household withdrawals, reopened assessment could not revisit an issue that had already attained finality in the original assessments absent escaped income material relating to that issue; the additions were therefore unsustainable and deleted. The reassessment jurisdiction remained confined to escaped income within the recorded reasons.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=100008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 179 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61561</link>
      <description>Income validly disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 could not be treated as ordinary taxable income in reassessment, so it had to be excluded from the assessed total income. However, that exclusion did not justify annulling the reassessment itself, as the proper consequence was only deletion of the disclosed amount. On low household withdrawals, reopened assessment could not revisit an issue that had already attained finality in the original assessments absent escaped income material relating to that issue; the additions were therefore unsustainable and deleted. The reassessment jurisdiction remained confined to escaped income within the recorded reasons.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61561</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>