<?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>2009 (6) TMI 656 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205966</link>
    <description>Reassessment under section 147 may be initiated on a prima facie belief of escapement based on bank-account information, even without conclusive proof at the threshold, so the reopening was upheld. On merits, the materials including rent records, sales-tax registration, shop occupation, business returns and bullion purchases supported a genuine jewellery business, so the allegation of accommodation entries failed. Statements recorded by the Deputy Director under section 131 were invalid where no pending proceedings or contemplated search-linked inquiry was shown, so they were inadmissible. Retracted confessional statements could not sustain additions without independent, cogent corroboration, so they could not form the sole basis of assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2016 17:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 656 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205966</link>
      <description>Reassessment under section 147 may be initiated on a prima facie belief of escapement based on bank-account information, even without conclusive proof at the threshold, so the reopening was upheld. On merits, the materials including rent records, sales-tax registration, shop occupation, business returns and bullion purchases supported a genuine jewellery business, so the allegation of accommodation entries failed. Statements recorded by the Deputy Director under section 131 were invalid where no pending proceedings or contemplated search-linked inquiry was shown, so they were inadmissible. Retracted confessional statements could not sustain additions without independent, cogent corroboration, so they could not form the sole basis of assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205966</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>