<?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>2009 (8) TMI 1198 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186645</link>
    <description>Deletion of additions for alleged undisclosed income from sale of jewellery was upheld where the purchasers were identifiable, the sale proceeds were accounted for, and affidavits supported the genuineness of the transactions. The Court accepted the Tribunal&#039;s reliance on earlier precedent involving similar sales under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, and found the Revenue&#039;s attempted distinction unpersuasive. In the absence of any contrary material from the Assessing Officer, and without examining the alleged middleman or proving the sales were sham, the allegation of non-genuineness could not stand. The genuineness of the transactions in the purchasers&#039; hands was also not doubted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:28:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=442842" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1198 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186645</link>
      <description>Deletion of additions for alleged undisclosed income from sale of jewellery was upheld where the purchasers were identifiable, the sale proceeds were accounted for, and affidavits supported the genuineness of the transactions. The Court accepted the Tribunal&#039;s reliance on earlier precedent involving similar sales under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, and found the Revenue&#039;s attempted distinction unpersuasive. In the absence of any contrary material from the Assessing Officer, and without examining the alleged middleman or proving the sales were sham, the allegation of non-genuineness could not stand. The genuineness of the transactions in the purchasers&#039; hands was also not doubted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>