<?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 (9) TMI 140 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78893</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, emphasizing the importance of establishing the identity of share applicants and the genuineness of transactions when dealing with additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the share application money was not undisclosed income, in line with legal precedent and the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 22:48:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 140 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78893</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, emphasizing the importance of establishing the identity of share applicants and the genuineness of transactions when dealing with additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the share application money was not undisclosed income, in line with legal precedent and the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78893</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>