<?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>1979 (6) TMI 78 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67716</link>
    <description>An addition for undisclosed income was deleted where the assessee&#039;s explanation that the amount was a loan from his maternal grandmother was supported by consistent affidavits, declarations and witness statements, while the Revenue produced no affirmative evidence of any alternative source of income. The reassessment notice was also held competent because earlier proceedings under the repealed 1922 Act had only reached the stage of preliminary inquiry and had been dropped before the 1961 Act commenced, so no completed or pending proceeding barred action under the transitional scheme. The resulting position was that the income addition could not stand and the jurisdictional challenge also failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:39:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=106151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (6) TMI 78 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67716</link>
      <description>An addition for undisclosed income was deleted where the assessee&#039;s explanation that the amount was a loan from his maternal grandmother was supported by consistent affidavits, declarations and witness statements, while the Revenue produced no affirmative evidence of any alternative source of income. The reassessment notice was also held competent because earlier proceedings under the repealed 1922 Act had only reached the stage of preliminary inquiry and had been dropped before the 1961 Act commenced, so no completed or pending proceeding barred action under the transitional scheme. The resulting position was that the income addition could not stand and the jurisdictional challenge also failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67716</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>