<?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>2003 (5) TMI 513 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178133</link>
    <description>Search statements under section 132(4) were treated as voluntary and reliable where the assessee and family members signed them, and later retraction was viewed as an afterthought. On concurrent findings that M/s Shree Products was not a genuine concern, the Court noted that book entries in a non-genuine or benami concern do not prevent assessment of the real income under Chapter XIV-B, even though such entries may be relevant in a regular assessment. The claim of exemption under section 80HHC was rejected on the facts. Gifts were also held non-genuine because the assessee failed to prove the donors&#039; identity, capacity, and genuineness with cogent evidence, so the amounts were treated as undisclosed income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2019 16:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 513 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178133</link>
      <description>Search statements under section 132(4) were treated as voluntary and reliable where the assessee and family members signed them, and later retraction was viewed as an afterthought. On concurrent findings that M/s Shree Products was not a genuine concern, the Court noted that book entries in a non-genuine or benami concern do not prevent assessment of the real income under Chapter XIV-B, even though such entries may be relevant in a regular assessment. The claim of exemption under section 80HHC was rejected on the facts. Gifts were also held non-genuine because the assessee failed to prove the donors&#039; identity, capacity, and genuineness with cogent evidence, so the amounts were treated as undisclosed income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>