<?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>2008 (2) TMI 884 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177786</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to establish sundry credits. Failure to provide evidence can lead to additions as income under sections 68 and 69(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Court reversed the Tribunal&#039;s decision, allowing the department&#039;s appeal and restoring the assessment. The Court declined to address the sales tax assessment issue due to the insignificance of the amount in question.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:14:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=413532" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 884 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177786</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to establish sundry credits. Failure to provide evidence can lead to additions as income under sections 68 and 69(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Court reversed the Tribunal&#039;s decision, allowing the department&#039;s appeal and restoring the assessment. The Court declined to address the sales tax assessment issue due to the insignificance of the amount in question.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177786</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>