<?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 (5) TMI 159 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70917</link>
    <description>Reopening of gift-tax proceedings was sustained where the recorded material, including a seized diary and related statements, gave the Assessing Officer a prima facie basis to believe that taxable gifts had escaped assessment; the Tribunal held that sufficiency of the material could not be re-argued at the reopening stage. The allegation that reopening was made on the dictates of higher authorities also failed, because the correspondence showed only a request to examine the material and act promptly, not a surrender of discretion. The remand order was likewise upheld, since the Commissioner (Appeals) had directed further factual inquiry on the identity of donees and the nature of the alleged gifts rather than finally deleting the additions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:42:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109253" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 159 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70917</link>
      <description>Reopening of gift-tax proceedings was sustained where the recorded material, including a seized diary and related statements, gave the Assessing Officer a prima facie basis to believe that taxable gifts had escaped assessment; the Tribunal held that sufficiency of the material could not be re-argued at the reopening stage. The allegation that reopening was made on the dictates of higher authorities also failed, because the correspondence showed only a request to examine the material and act promptly, not a surrender of discretion. The remand order was likewise upheld, since the Commissioner (Appeals) had directed further factual inquiry on the identity of donees and the nature of the alleged gifts rather than finally deleting the additions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>