<?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>1999 (3) TMI 126 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71691</link>
    <description>In block assessment, an addition cannot be treated as undisclosed income merely because a Valuation Officer estimated construction cost at a higher figure. Where the expenditure was recorded in the regular books and the search yielded no seized material or other evidence showing investment outside the books, the estimated difference had no basis for taxation as undisclosed income. The valuation report alone was insufficient, and the addition was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:20:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110013" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 126 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71691</link>
      <description>In block assessment, an addition cannot be treated as undisclosed income merely because a Valuation Officer estimated construction cost at a higher figure. Where the expenditure was recorded in the regular books and the search yielded no seized material or other evidence showing investment outside the books, the estimated difference had no basis for taxation as undisclosed income. The valuation report alone was insufficient, and the addition was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>