<?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>2012 (9) TMI 665 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216857</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the Income Tax Appeal, upholding the findings of the Income Tax Authorities regarding undisclosed income from accommodation entries. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the reassessment based on information about demand drafts was deemed valid despite the assessee&#039;s explanations being found lacking in evidence. The court emphasized the importance of proving the genuineness of transactions and affirmed the burden of proof on the assessee in cases of undisclosed income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 665 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216857</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the Income Tax Appeal, upholding the findings of the Income Tax Authorities regarding undisclosed income from accommodation entries. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the reassessment based on information about demand drafts was deemed valid despite the assessee&#039;s explanations being found lacking in evidence. The court emphasized the importance of proving the genuineness of transactions and affirmed the burden of proof on the assessee in cases of undisclosed income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216857</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>