<?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>2016 (2) TMI 938 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187724</link>
    <description>Addition based on a survey statement was sustained where the assessee could not explain the material found during survey and had surrendered income during the proceedings. A belated retraction, made after a substantial delay and without satisfactory explanation, did not by itself displace the evidentiary value of the surrender, especially when the surrounding material supported the addition and the lower authorities had recorded concurrent findings of fact. The issue was decided against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446659" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 938 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187724</link>
      <description>Addition based on a survey statement was sustained where the assessee could not explain the material found during survey and had surrendered income during the proceedings. A belated retraction, made after a substantial delay and without satisfactory explanation, did not by itself displace the evidentiary value of the surrender, especially when the surrounding material supported the addition and the lower authorities had recorded concurrent findings of fact. The issue was decided against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>