<?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 (5) TMI 1304 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189488</link>
    <description>Search assessment additions were treated differently depending on the quality of the material and the assessee&#039;s explanation. Additions concerning Ashiyana Apartments and the related capital gains issue, as well as the Raja Park property and plot transactions, were sent back for fresh factual appraisal because the record and valuation material were not properly examined. The jewellery addition was deleted because the family status, disclosed wealth, and social circumstances reasonably explained the ornaments. Foreign medical expenses were sustained on the basis of travel and expenditure material, while additions founded on seized documents and search statements were upheld because a belated, unsupported retraction did not displace the admission. A statement under section 132(4) was treated as carrying strong evidentiary value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:04:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 1304 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189488</link>
      <description>Search assessment additions were treated differently depending on the quality of the material and the assessee&#039;s explanation. Additions concerning Ashiyana Apartments and the related capital gains issue, as well as the Raja Park property and plot transactions, were sent back for fresh factual appraisal because the record and valuation material were not properly examined. The jewellery addition was deleted because the family status, disclosed wealth, and social circumstances reasonably explained the ornaments. Foreign medical expenses were sustained on the basis of travel and expenditure material, while additions founded on seized documents and search statements were upheld because a belated, unsupported retraction did not displace the admission. A statement under section 132(4) was treated as carrying strong evidentiary value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>