<?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>2011 (8) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204865</link>
    <description>Additions relating to alleged gifts of immovable properties and cash were deleted because the donors appeared, filed affidavits, produced tax and bank records, and supported the transfers with registered gift deeds and banking channels. On those facts, the identity, capacity and genuineness of the donors and transactions were established under the principles governing gifts, and the dispute did not attract Sections 68 or 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the Revenue was only seeking reappreciation of factual findings, which were neither perverse nor unsupported by evidence, and therefore no substantial question of law arose. The deletions were upheld and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178393" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204865</link>
      <description>Additions relating to alleged gifts of immovable properties and cash were deleted because the donors appeared, filed affidavits, produced tax and bank records, and supported the transfers with registered gift deeds and banking channels. On those facts, the identity, capacity and genuineness of the donors and transactions were established under the principles governing gifts, and the dispute did not attract Sections 68 or 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the Revenue was only seeking reappreciation of factual findings, which were neither perverse nor unsupported by evidence, and therefore no substantial question of law arose. The deletions were upheld and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>