<?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>2008 (5) TMI 314 - ITAT JAIPUR-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68274</link>
    <description>Reassessment under sections 147 and 148 requires material that gives rise to a bona fide reason to believe income has escaped assessment, and a reference to the DVO under section 142A must rest on a proper jurisdictional basis. On the stated facts, the reopening was based on an Inspector&#039;s report and estimated construction cost, while complete books and vouchers were already on record, so the valuation reference was treated as invalid. For the addition on alleged unexplained investment in construction, an unrebutted registered valuer&#039;s report was accepted as sufficient, and the DVO estimate alone was not regarded as a reliable basis for the addition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=106676" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 314 - ITAT JAIPUR-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68274</link>
      <description>Reassessment under sections 147 and 148 requires material that gives rise to a bona fide reason to believe income has escaped assessment, and a reference to the DVO under section 142A must rest on a proper jurisdictional basis. On the stated facts, the reopening was based on an Inspector&#039;s report and estimated construction cost, while complete books and vouchers were already on record, so the valuation reference was treated as invalid. For the addition on alleged unexplained investment in construction, an unrebutted registered valuer&#039;s report was accepted as sufficient, and the DVO estimate alone was not regarded as a reliable basis for the addition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>