<?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>Supreme Court questions High Court&#039;s remand decision on Section 68 non-disclosure of loans by 37 individuals.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=30960</link>
    <description>Addition relating to trade creditors - additions u/s 68 - in view of the categorical finding that the loan amounts were not reflected in the returns of the 37 persons in question, we do not see how the High Court could have taken the above view and remanded the matter to the AO - SC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:30:26 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:30:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439424" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court questions High Court&#039;s remand decision on Section 68 non-disclosure of loans by 37 individuals.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=30960</link>
      <description>Addition relating to trade creditors - additions u/s 68 - in view of the categorical finding that the loan amounts were not reflected in the returns of the 37 persons in question, we do not see how the High Court could have taken the above view and remanded the matter to the AO - SC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:30:26 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=30960</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>