<?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 (9) TMI 427 - ITAT JODHPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68670</link>
    <description>Recorded reasons based on a survey, impounded diary entries and unrecorded credits were found sufficient to create a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment, so reopening under sections 147 and 148 was upheld. The diary entries were treated as relevant records of alleged loans, and the assessee&#039;s failure to produce confirmations or explain the source of credits sustained the addition in part; however, where third parties denied the loans, the assessee was entitled to cross-examination before that adverse material was relied on, so that segment was remanded for reconsideration. Ad hoc disallowance of business expenses was also sustained because the expenses were inadequately vouched and not shown to be wholly and exclusively for business.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107063" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 427 - ITAT JODHPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68670</link>
      <description>Recorded reasons based on a survey, impounded diary entries and unrecorded credits were found sufficient to create a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment, so reopening under sections 147 and 148 was upheld. The diary entries were treated as relevant records of alleged loans, and the assessee&#039;s failure to produce confirmations or explain the source of credits sustained the addition in part; however, where third parties denied the loans, the assessee was entitled to cross-examination before that adverse material was relied on, so that segment was remanded for reconsideration. Ad hoc disallowance of business expenses was also sustained because the expenses were inadequately vouched and not shown to be wholly and exclusively for business.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68670</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>