<?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 (9) TMI 115 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263447</link>
    <description>In a search assessment under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, addition towards share capital could not be sustained where no incriminating material relating to that issue was found during the search. The lower factual finding that no such evidence existed was accepted, and the Revenue failed to show that the finding was perverse. On that basis, the deletion of the Section 68 addition was maintained, and no substantial question of law arose from the challenge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 13:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395640" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 115 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263447</link>
      <description>In a search assessment under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, addition towards share capital could not be sustained where no incriminating material relating to that issue was found during the search. The lower factual finding that no such evidence existed was accepted, and the Revenue failed to show that the finding was perverse. On that basis, the deletion of the Section 68 addition was maintained, and no substantial question of law arose from the challenge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263447</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>