<?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>2017 (9) TMI 480 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347723</link>
    <description>Only statements recorded on oath by the authorised officer during the course of a search have evidentiary value under section 132(4); a post-search letter does not qualify and could not be used against the assessee. Block assessment under Chapter XIV-B can be based only on undisclosed income found from material discovered in the search, so a later declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, unconnected with search material, could not support an addition. The Tribunal&#039;s finding that the assessee explained the source of purchases and initial capital was a factual determination not shown to be perverse, and there was no basis to interfere.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2018 15:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488730" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 480 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347723</link>
      <description>Only statements recorded on oath by the authorised officer during the course of a search have evidentiary value under section 132(4); a post-search letter does not qualify and could not be used against the assessee. Block assessment under Chapter XIV-B can be based only on undisclosed income found from material discovered in the search, so a later declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, unconnected with search material, could not support an addition. The Tribunal&#039;s finding that the assessee explained the source of purchases and initial capital was a factual determination not shown to be perverse, and there was no basis to interfere.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>