<?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 (3) TMI 239 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76687</link>
    <description>The High Court of PUNJAB &amp;amp; HARYANA upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, emphasizing the importance of disclosing the identity of share applicants and holders to avoid additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments of share applicants/share holders rather than making additions against the assessee-respondent, in line with the Supreme Court&#039;s established precedents. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed as lacking merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114884" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 239 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76687</link>
      <description>The High Court of PUNJAB &amp;amp; HARYANA upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, emphasizing the importance of disclosing the identity of share applicants and holders to avoid additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments of share applicants/share holders rather than making additions against the assessee-respondent, in line with the Supreme Court&#039;s established precedents. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed as lacking merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76687</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>