<?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>2006 (4) TMI 90 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9902</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s failure to prove the genuineness of the credit transaction and the alleged creditor&#039;s capacity. The Court&#039;s analysis focused on established legal principles regarding the burden of proof on the assessee and the limitations of appellate jurisdiction in challenging factual findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48924" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 90 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9902</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s failure to prove the genuineness of the credit transaction and the alleged creditor&#039;s capacity. The Court&#039;s analysis focused on established legal principles regarding the burden of proof on the assessee and the limitations of appellate jurisdiction in challenging factual findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9902</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>