<?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>2007 (9) TMI 442 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119258</link>
    <description>Amounts already disclosed or assessed in regular proceedings cannot be taxed again as undisclosed income in block assessment under Chapter XIV-B and section 158BD unless supported by incriminating material found in search. On the facts, gifts, related interest and rental income were excluded from block additions because they had been disclosed or assessed earlier and no search material showed concealment. Additions for alleged bogus gifts and premium also failed because the assessee produced identity, bank trail and confirmations, while suspicion and an untested earlier statement were insufficient. A valuation-based addition on property purchase likewise could not stand where it rested only on the DVO report without evidence of unrecorded consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 442 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119258</link>
      <description>Amounts already disclosed or assessed in regular proceedings cannot be taxed again as undisclosed income in block assessment under Chapter XIV-B and section 158BD unless supported by incriminating material found in search. On the facts, gifts, related interest and rental income were excluded from block additions because they had been disclosed or assessed earlier and no search material showed concealment. Additions for alleged bogus gifts and premium also failed because the assessee produced identity, bank trail and confirmations, while suspicion and an untested earlier statement were insufficient. A valuation-based addition on property purchase likewise could not stand where it rested only on the DVO report without evidence of unrecorded consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>