<?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>2006 (3) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT,  RAJASTHAN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2404</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision to delete income from an undisclosed source. The Court emphasized the lack of legal grounds for challenging the Tribunal&#039;s factual findings and highlighted procedural errors in the assessment process. Despite directions for a fresh assessment, the assessing officer failed to rectify the procedural shortcomings. The Court found no substantial question of law, as the decision was based on factual assessments and failure to adhere to procedural requirements. The dismissal was supported by consistent findings and procedural irregularities, leading to the rejection of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 Feb 2011 02:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41765" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT,  RAJASTHAN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2404</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision to delete income from an undisclosed source. The Court emphasized the lack of legal grounds for challenging the Tribunal&#039;s factual findings and highlighted procedural errors in the assessment process. Despite directions for a fresh assessment, the assessing officer failed to rectify the procedural shortcomings. The Court found no substantial question of law, as the decision was based on factual assessments and failure to adhere to procedural requirements. The dismissal was supported by consistent findings and procedural irregularities, leading to the rejection of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>