<?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 (10) TMI 1161 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350006</link>
    <description>The High Court set aside the impugned order concerning the addition of unexplained investment in property under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2005-2006. The Court remitted the matter for reconsideration due to discrepancies in evidence and reliance on a previous order that had been set aside. The importance of reliable evidence and proper verification in assessments was emphasized, highlighting the need for accurate and verified evidence in such cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Oct 2017 08:19:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493826" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 1161 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350006</link>
      <description>The High Court set aside the impugned order concerning the addition of unexplained investment in property under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2005-2006. The Court remitted the matter for reconsideration due to discrepancies in evidence and reliance on a previous order that had been set aside. The importance of reliable evidence and proper verification in assessments was emphasized, highlighting the need for accurate and verified evidence in such cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>