<?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 702 - Allahabad High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210527</link>
    <description>The court upheld the validity of the second notice for reassessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, finding it not time-barred due to the likelihood of the escaped income exceeding one lakh rupees. Additionally, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue on the issue of clubbing Sri P. K. Mitra&#039;s income with the appellant-firm&#039;s income, establishing him as a benamidar. The court also upheld the admissibility of Shri Kuldeep Mehra&#039;s statement and supported the substantive assessment of both parties for the sale of flats in the assessment year 1995-96. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Dec 2019 18:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183961" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 702 - Allahabad High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210527</link>
      <description>The court upheld the validity of the second notice for reassessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, finding it not time-barred due to the likelihood of the escaped income exceeding one lakh rupees. Additionally, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue on the issue of clubbing Sri P. K. Mitra&#039;s income with the appellant-firm&#039;s income, establishing him as a benamidar. The court also upheld the admissibility of Shri Kuldeep Mehra&#039;s statement and supported the substantive assessment of both parties for the sale of flats in the assessment year 1995-96. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210527</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>