<?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>2011 (7) TMI 1336 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275424</link>
    <description>In block assessment based on seized papers, an addition can be sustained only when the revenue establishes the true ownership and nature of the entries through proper enquiry and evidence. Here, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not fully complied with remand directions or verified all relevant persons and bank transactions, so the entire factual basis for treating every entry as the assessee&#039;s undisclosed income was not proved. On that record, only the explained or admitted items, including the share of profit and supported amounts, were retained in the assessee&#039;s hands, while the protective additions against the company failed for want of proof of linkage to it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:24:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=536828" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 1336 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275424</link>
      <description>In block assessment based on seized papers, an addition can be sustained only when the revenue establishes the true ownership and nature of the entries through proper enquiry and evidence. Here, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not fully complied with remand directions or verified all relevant persons and bank transactions, so the entire factual basis for treating every entry as the assessee&#039;s undisclosed income was not proved. On that record, only the explained or admitted items, including the share of profit and supported amounts, were retained in the assessee&#039;s hands, while the protective additions against the company failed for want of proof of linkage to it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275424</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>