<?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>2006 (1) TMI 204 - ITAT JODHPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68604</link>
    <description>In block assessment proceedings, additions must be supported by incriminating material or other reliable evidence found during search; unsupported estimates and an uncorroborated statement under section 132(4) were treated as insufficient to sustain additions. Documentary evidence such as job registers, bills, confirmations and affidavits was considered relevant, and explanations for several cash items were accepted where supported by such material. Allegations of denial of natural justice in the valuation of seized assets were rejected because opportunity of hearing had been given. Certain disputes over silver items and impurity content were remanded for fresh examination on the existing record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2024 16:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=106998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 204 - ITAT JODHPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68604</link>
      <description>In block assessment proceedings, additions must be supported by incriminating material or other reliable evidence found during search; unsupported estimates and an uncorroborated statement under section 132(4) were treated as insufficient to sustain additions. Documentary evidence such as job registers, bills, confirmations and affidavits was considered relevant, and explanations for several cash items were accepted where supported by such material. Allegations of denial of natural justice in the valuation of seized assets were rejected because opportunity of hearing had been given. Certain disputes over silver items and impurity content were remanded for fresh examination on the existing record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68604</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>