<?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 (2) TMI 262 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76874</link>
    <description>Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 bar oral evidence or affidavits from contradicting the terms of a written and registered sale deed. Where the deed records a specific consideration, that recital prevails as the best evidence of the transaction and cannot be displaced by later assertions that no consideration passed. On that basis, the stated consideration was treated as the real consideration and was brought to tax as unexplained investment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115059" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 262 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76874</link>
      <description>Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 bar oral evidence or affidavits from contradicting the terms of a written and registered sale deed. Where the deed records a specific consideration, that recital prevails as the best evidence of the transaction and cannot be displaced by later assertions that no consideration passed. On that basis, the stated consideration was treated as the real consideration and was brought to tax as unexplained investment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>