<?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 (6) TMI 308 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234483</link>
    <description>In block assessment proceedings, additions to undisclosed income must be supported by incriminating material found during search and cannot rest on assumptions or surmise. The Tribunal deleted the addition for unexplained investment in lottery tickets because the audit report and search material showed prize-winning tickets were returned in settlement, accounts were adjusted weekly, and no evidence established cash payments outside the books. It also deleted the alleged incentive income addition because no search material showed that the assessee was an organizer or stockist, had dealings with the named person, or had received any such income. Both additions were held unsustainable for want of supporting material.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:13:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 308 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234483</link>
      <description>In block assessment proceedings, additions to undisclosed income must be supported by incriminating material found during search and cannot rest on assumptions or surmise. The Tribunal deleted the addition for unexplained investment in lottery tickets because the audit report and search material showed prize-winning tickets were returned in settlement, accounts were adjusted weekly, and no evidence established cash payments outside the books. It also deleted the alleged incentive income addition because no search material showed that the assessee was an organizer or stockist, had dealings with the named person, or had received any such income. Both additions were held unsustainable for want of supporting material.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234483</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>