<?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>2008 (9) TMI 880 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161191</link>
    <description>Cash deposits fully recorded in regularly maintained books and reflected in returns filed before the search within the section 139(1) timeframe were not undisclosed income for Chapter XIV-B block assessment purposes. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer&#039;s addition went beyond the scope of block assessment because the deposits had already been disclosed in the regular records and return filings. The High Court treated these conclusions as pure findings of fact and accepted that the settled law on block assessments had been correctly applied. The addition was therefore unsustainable, and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2014 10:52:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342125" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 880 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161191</link>
      <description>Cash deposits fully recorded in regularly maintained books and reflected in returns filed before the search within the section 139(1) timeframe were not undisclosed income for Chapter XIV-B block assessment purposes. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer&#039;s addition went beyond the scope of block assessment because the deposits had already been disclosed in the regular records and return filings. The High Court treated these conclusions as pure findings of fact and accepted that the settled law on block assessments had been correctly applied. The addition was therefore unsustainable, and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>