<?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 (8) TMI 509 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262592</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment of undisclosed income based on seized documents. The Court found no perversity in the Tribunal&#039;s decision and agreed that the inclusion of the amount in the assessee&#039;s income was unjustified. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that there was no concrete evidence linking the investments in shares to the assessee and that the addition of the amount to the assessee&#039;s income was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2015 23:35:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393323" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 509 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262592</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment of undisclosed income based on seized documents. The Court found no perversity in the Tribunal&#039;s decision and agreed that the inclusion of the amount in the assessee&#039;s income was unjustified. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that there was no concrete evidence linking the investments in shares to the assessee and that the addition of the amount to the assessee&#039;s income was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262592</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>