<?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>2000 (1) TMI 144 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62301</link>
    <description>In block assessment under section 158BC, income found from search material and a return filed after the search for assessment year 1996-97 could be included in block income under section 158BB because the due date had expired before the search. Additions based on household articles, domestic expenses, bank credits and provision for expenses required fresh verification and opportunity, so they were remitted. Omitted professional fees admitted in the block return were sustained, and the bad debt claim failed for not satisfying section 36(2). Interior-decoration expenditure was treated as revenue in nature, while the supposed renovation addition was deleted as factually mistaken.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:45:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=100747" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 144 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62301</link>
      <description>In block assessment under section 158BC, income found from search material and a return filed after the search for assessment year 1996-97 could be included in block income under section 158BB because the due date had expired before the search. Additions based on household articles, domestic expenses, bank credits and provision for expenses required fresh verification and opportunity, so they were remitted. Omitted professional fees admitted in the block return were sustained, and the bad debt claim failed for not satisfying section 36(2). Interior-decoration expenditure was treated as revenue in nature, while the supposed renovation addition was deleted as factually mistaken.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>