<?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>2014 (4) TMI 1121 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180584</link>
    <description>Belated tax appeals were held time-barred because the assessee offered no sufficient cause for the delay, and awareness of penalty proceedings did not justify waiting until the penalty order. Gifts credited in the assessees&#039; accounts were treated as unexplained income where donor statements denied genuine gifting, cash-linked pay orders were indicated, and no credible evidence showed donor capacity, close relationship, or true donative intent. Confrontation and subsequent surrender did not discharge the burden of proving the transactions genuine. The order therefore sustained refusal to condone delay and upheld the additions on account of allegedly bogus gifts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:25:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421779" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 1121 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180584</link>
      <description>Belated tax appeals were held time-barred because the assessee offered no sufficient cause for the delay, and awareness of penalty proceedings did not justify waiting until the penalty order. Gifts credited in the assessees&#039; accounts were treated as unexplained income where donor statements denied genuine gifting, cash-linked pay orders were indicated, and no credible evidence showed donor capacity, close relationship, or true donative intent. Confrontation and subsequent surrender did not discharge the burden of proving the transactions genuine. The order therefore sustained refusal to condone delay and upheld the additions on account of allegedly bogus gifts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180584</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>