<?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>2014 (4) TMI 565 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246128</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decisions. The additions for under-invoiced sales of Kattha and unexplained investments in plant &amp;amp; machinery and factory building were deleted as unsupported by evidence found during the search. The reliance on the Supreme Court&#039;s decision was upheld, emphasizing the need for evidence found during the search, unaffected by the retrospective amendment to Section 142A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2014 13:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352467" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 565 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246128</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decisions. The additions for under-invoiced sales of Kattha and unexplained investments in plant &amp;amp; machinery and factory building were deleted as unsupported by evidence found during the search. The reliance on the Supreme Court&#039;s decision was upheld, emphasizing the need for evidence found during the search, unaffected by the retrospective amendment to Section 142A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246128</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>