<?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>2011 (9) TMI 1014 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177778</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the appeal regarding the reopening of assessment under Section 148 and addition of undisclosed investment under Section 69 based on DVO valuation. The CIT(A) and ITAT deleted the addition, citing lack of evidence of extra payment for shares by the Assessee. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal concluded that additions cannot be made without concrete evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:51:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=413488" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 1014 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177778</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the appeal regarding the reopening of assessment under Section 148 and addition of undisclosed investment under Section 69 based on DVO valuation. The CIT(A) and ITAT deleted the addition, citing lack of evidence of extra payment for shares by the Assessee. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal concluded that additions cannot be made without concrete evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>