<?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>2013 (7) TMI 995 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180382</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision regarding additions under Section 69C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The appellant&#039;s challenge to the Assessing Officer&#039;s addition for unrecorded transactions during the block period was dismissed. The Court agreed with the Tribunal&#039;s findings that only the profit from unaccounted sales or the difference between sales and expenditure could be taxed. The remaining amount was considered personal expenditure and added to the disclosed income. The appellant&#039;s failure to provide sufficient evidence and documentation to support their claims led to the dismissal of their appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:24:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 995 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180382</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision regarding additions under Section 69C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The appellant&#039;s challenge to the Assessing Officer&#039;s addition for unrecorded transactions during the block period was dismissed. The Court agreed with the Tribunal&#039;s findings that only the profit from unaccounted sales or the difference between sales and expenditure could be taxed. The remaining amount was considered personal expenditure and added to the disclosed income. The appellant&#039;s failure to provide sufficient evidence and documentation to support their claims led to the dismissal of their appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>