<?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>2015 (6) TMI 69 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260144</link>
    <description>Block assessment under Chapter XIV-B must rest on seized material, and assets or liabilities already disclosed or otherwise supported by evidence cannot be treated as undisclosed income merely because regular reassessment was not pursued. Investments in immovable properties declared under a voluntary disclosure scheme could not be brought to block assessment; depreciation remained allowable where vehicles were taken at cost; stock-in-trade could not be revalued above the assessee&#039;s cost in the absence of contrary material; jewellery and silver articles attributed to family members or earlier disclosed were not addable; sundry creditors supported by seized records were deductible; and an estimated addition for insufficient drawings, made without seized evidence, was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2015 06:10:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386637" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 69 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260144</link>
      <description>Block assessment under Chapter XIV-B must rest on seized material, and assets or liabilities already disclosed or otherwise supported by evidence cannot be treated as undisclosed income merely because regular reassessment was not pursued. Investments in immovable properties declared under a voluntary disclosure scheme could not be brought to block assessment; depreciation remained allowable where vehicles were taken at cost; stock-in-trade could not be revalued above the assessee&#039;s cost in the absence of contrary material; jewellery and silver articles attributed to family members or earlier disclosed were not addable; sundry creditors supported by seized records were deductible; and an estimated addition for insufficient drawings, made without seized evidence, was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260144</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>