<?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 (2) TMI 164 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63287</link>
    <description>Under Chapter XIV-B, only income actually undisclosed and found as a result of search can be brought to tax. Additions for share capital, share certificates, bank deposits, peak credits, loan-related entries and minor children&#039;s disclosed investments were deleted because regular books, returns, confirmations and contemporaneous records showed prior disclosure, and the Revenue failed to link the seized material to undisclosed income. Protective additions and mere non-appearance of some persons were insufficient. The jewellery addition was sustained because HUF ownership was not proved by affidavit alone and no prior disclosure existed, while diamond and silver additions were deleted on the basis of purchase bills and bank payments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:56:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=101731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 164 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63287</link>
      <description>Under Chapter XIV-B, only income actually undisclosed and found as a result of search can be brought to tax. Additions for share capital, share certificates, bank deposits, peak credits, loan-related entries and minor children&#039;s disclosed investments were deleted because regular books, returns, confirmations and contemporaneous records showed prior disclosure, and the Revenue failed to link the seized material to undisclosed income. Protective additions and mere non-appearance of some persons were insufficient. The jewellery addition was sustained because HUF ownership was not proved by affidavit alone and no prior disclosure existed, while diamond and silver additions were deleted on the basis of purchase bills and bank payments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63287</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>