<?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>2013 (1) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219907</link>
    <description>In block assessment, additions must rest on seized material found during the search and cannot be sustained on suspicion or post-search enquiry alone. The jewellery addition was set aside for fresh Tribunal consideration because the assessee had been given an opportunity after remand, though the record did not support the adverse inference drawn. Investments in immovable properties standing in the names of the assessee&#039;s wife and son were not assessable as undisclosed income in the absence of search material. The share investment addition was sustained to the extent of the assessee&#039;s admitted investment. Additions relating to P.R. Wines and thandal business were deleted for want of seized evidence, with regular assessment left open where warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 11:54:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193277" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219907</link>
      <description>In block assessment, additions must rest on seized material found during the search and cannot be sustained on suspicion or post-search enquiry alone. The jewellery addition was set aside for fresh Tribunal consideration because the assessee had been given an opportunity after remand, though the record did not support the adverse inference drawn. Investments in immovable properties standing in the names of the assessee&#039;s wife and son were not assessable as undisclosed income in the absence of search material. The share investment addition was sustained to the extent of the assessee&#039;s admitted investment. Additions relating to P.R. Wines and thandal business were deleted for want of seized evidence, with regular assessment left open where warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>