<?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>2003 (3) TMI 317 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71656</link>
    <description>In block assessment, income below the taxable limit for the relevant years was not treated as undisclosed income on the facts found, so the interest addition was deleted. A cash gift supported by the donor&#039;s letter and similar accepted facts was also deleted as an unexplained credit. Cash credits supported by affidavits or confirmatory letters were not sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to complete proper verification, though one set of credits was remanded for fresh examination because further opportunity to test the affidavits had not been given. An estimated addition based on unverifiable assumptions and no seized support was deleted, while one expense addition was sustained only for the unreconciled item and the capital investment addition was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:20:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 317 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71656</link>
      <description>In block assessment, income below the taxable limit for the relevant years was not treated as undisclosed income on the facts found, so the interest addition was deleted. A cash gift supported by the donor&#039;s letter and similar accepted facts was also deleted as an unexplained credit. Cash credits supported by affidavits or confirmatory letters were not sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to complete proper verification, though one set of credits was remanded for fresh examination because further opportunity to test the affidavits had not been given. An estimated addition based on unverifiable assumptions and no seized support was deleted, while one expense addition was sustained only for the unreconciled item and the capital investment addition was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71656</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>