<?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>2010 (1) TMI 124 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75840</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the ITAT&#039;s decision to delete the addition of undisclosed income based on a stock discrepancy, emphasizing the lack of independent verification beyond the Excise Department&#039;s findings. The court dismissed the appeal, highlighting the necessity of concrete evidence in tax assessments to support additions and establish discrepancies accurately. The judgment reinforces the importance of independent verification and valid evidence in determining undisclosed income for fair tax assessments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 124 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75840</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the ITAT&#039;s decision to delete the addition of undisclosed income based on a stock discrepancy, emphasizing the lack of independent verification beyond the Excise Department&#039;s findings. The court dismissed the appeal, highlighting the necessity of concrete evidence in tax assessments to support additions and establish discrepancies accurately. The judgment reinforces the importance of independent verification and valid evidence in determining undisclosed income for fair tax assessments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>