<?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 (12) TMI 182 - ITAT INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219167</link>
    <description>Audited books supported by vouchers and quantitative details could not be rejected wholesale under section 153C without seized material or established defects, so a uniform profit estimation across assessment years 2000-01 to 2006-07 was not sustained in full; the addition was instead restricted year-wise to non-verifiable expenses, giving partial relief to the assessee. An alleged land sale at Chuna Bhatti for assessment year 2006-07 was upheld because a seized agreement to sell, the director&#039;s statement under section 132(4), surrounding circumstances, and the subsequent sale deed supported the unrecorded consideration on human probability. The cross appeals were thus disposed of with partial relief on profit estimation and confirmation of the land-sale addition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 19:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192537" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 182 - ITAT INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219167</link>
      <description>Audited books supported by vouchers and quantitative details could not be rejected wholesale under section 153C without seized material or established defects, so a uniform profit estimation across assessment years 2000-01 to 2006-07 was not sustained in full; the addition was instead restricted year-wise to non-verifiable expenses, giving partial relief to the assessee. An alleged land sale at Chuna Bhatti for assessment year 2006-07 was upheld because a seized agreement to sell, the director&#039;s statement under section 132(4), surrounding circumstances, and the subsequent sale deed supported the unrecorded consideration on human probability. The cross appeals were thus disposed of with partial relief on profit estimation and confirmation of the land-sale addition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219167</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>