<?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 646 - Karnataka High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203541</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the appeal in part, remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of issues related to excess unexplained cash found during search and unexplained trade advances. The Court found share capital investments made by employees were not adequately investigated, stating share application money from alleged bogus shareholders should not be undisclosed income. However, the Court noted a lack of valid reasons in the Tribunal&#039;s order on the other items, emphasizing the need for proper reasoning based on the record material. The Court did not address the Revenue&#039;s substantial questions of law on these issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 646 - Karnataka High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203541</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the appeal in part, remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of issues related to excess unexplained cash found during search and unexplained trade advances. The Court found share capital investments made by employees were not adequately investigated, stating share application money from alleged bogus shareholders should not be undisclosed income. However, the Court noted a lack of valid reasons in the Tribunal&#039;s order on the other items, emphasizing the need for proper reasoning based on the record material. The Court did not address the Revenue&#039;s substantial questions of law on these issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203541</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>