<?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>2004 (3) TMI 340 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63801</link>
    <description>In block assessment under Chapter XIV-B, additions must rest on incriminating material found in search and not on suspicion or valuation estimates alone. Cash found at a partner&#039;s residence was linked to recorded hospital receipts and was not treated as undisclosed income. Alleged suppressed profit based on differences between two sets of books was deleted because the receipts reconciled and no unrecorded income was shown. An addition for alleged undisclosed investment in hospital construction could not stand in the absence of seized material. The issue of depreciation on assets standing in partners&#039; names was remitted for verification of whether the assets were in fact reflected in the accounts and depreciation had earlier been allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:15:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102243" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 340 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63801</link>
      <description>In block assessment under Chapter XIV-B, additions must rest on incriminating material found in search and not on suspicion or valuation estimates alone. Cash found at a partner&#039;s residence was linked to recorded hospital receipts and was not treated as undisclosed income. Alleged suppressed profit based on differences between two sets of books was deleted because the receipts reconciled and no unrecorded income was shown. An addition for alleged undisclosed investment in hospital construction could not stand in the absence of seized material. The issue of depreciation on assets standing in partners&#039; names was remitted for verification of whether the assets were in fact reflected in the accounts and depreciation had earlier been allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63801</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>