<?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>2007 (10) TMI 611 - Delhi High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171644</link>
    <description>In block assessment, deposits and other receipts already reflected in the assessee&#039;s books or bank records could not be treated as undisclosed income merely because the source was not fully explained. The court also held that additions in search cases must rest on material found in the search, not on conjecture or unsupported valuation assumptions, so the alleged property investment at Sainik Farms could not be added without search evidence or a proper valuation basis. The commission-related matter was remanded only for limited reconsideration of the claimed expenditure component, while the peak-credit addition in the director&#039;s hands could not be repeated in the assessee&#039;s assessment on the factual finding that it had already been absorbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2024 10:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391527" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 611 - Delhi High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171644</link>
      <description>In block assessment, deposits and other receipts already reflected in the assessee&#039;s books or bank records could not be treated as undisclosed income merely because the source was not fully explained. The court also held that additions in search cases must rest on material found in the search, not on conjecture or unsupported valuation assumptions, so the alleged property investment at Sainik Farms could not be added without search evidence or a proper valuation basis. The commission-related matter was remanded only for limited reconsideration of the claimed expenditure component, while the peak-credit addition in the director&#039;s hands could not be repeated in the assessee&#039;s assessment on the factual finding that it had already been absorbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171644</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>