<?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>1999 (3) TMI 113 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66576</link>
    <description>Unexplained cash deficit was assessed as undisclosed income in a Chapter XIV-B block assessment. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate its later plea that the deficit was covered by share application money, since no primary allotment records were produced and the confirmations were self-serving; the proposed set-off from a third-party credit balance was temporally mismatched and partly transferred as share application money, leaving no availability. The addition was confirmed. On outstanding labour charges, the Tribunal accepted that self-made vouchers are customary for such payments and that liability had been consistently disclosed in returns and records preceding the search, negating &quot;undisclosed&quot; character; the addition was deleted. On valuation difference in warehouse construction, prior disclosure of construction and book cost meant the differential was not &quot;undisclosed&quot;; the addition was deleted, and the appeal partly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2025 23:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=105011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 113 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66576</link>
      <description>Unexplained cash deficit was assessed as undisclosed income in a Chapter XIV-B block assessment. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate its later plea that the deficit was covered by share application money, since no primary allotment records were produced and the confirmations were self-serving; the proposed set-off from a third-party credit balance was temporally mismatched and partly transferred as share application money, leaving no availability. The addition was confirmed. On outstanding labour charges, the Tribunal accepted that self-made vouchers are customary for such payments and that liability had been consistently disclosed in returns and records preceding the search, negating &quot;undisclosed&quot; character; the addition was deleted. On valuation difference in warehouse construction, prior disclosure of construction and book cost meant the differential was not &quot;undisclosed&quot;; the addition was deleted, and the appeal partly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66576</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>