<?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>1998 (4) TMI 32 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15140</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice served under section 148 and the reassessment proceedings under section 147. The Tribunal found the notice service valid as it was acknowledged by an individual acting as an agent for the assessee, and the reassessment was supported by unexplained credit entries. The addition of Rs. 50,000 was deemed justified, and the Tribunal&#039;s decision was affirmed, answering both legal questions in favor of the revenue authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:45:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54140" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 32 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15140</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice served under section 148 and the reassessment proceedings under section 147. The Tribunal found the notice service valid as it was acknowledged by an individual acting as an agent for the assessee, and the reassessment was supported by unexplained credit entries. The addition of Rs. 50,000 was deemed justified, and the Tribunal&#039;s decision was affirmed, answering both legal questions in favor of the revenue authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>