<?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>2020 (3) TMI 48 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392904</link>
    <description>An addition for undisclosed profit on the sale and purchase of property could not be sustained where it rested only on seized loose sheets and allied material. The seized papers, at best, showed tentative or projected figures and did not establish actual on-money payment or receipt. No unaccounted cash was proved to have passed between purchaser and seller, and there was no supporting statement from the seller admitting extra consideration. With the addition already deleted in the purchaser&#039;s case and no corresponding addition in the seller&#039;s hands, the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proving understatement of consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=605607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 48 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392904</link>
      <description>An addition for undisclosed profit on the sale and purchase of property could not be sustained where it rested only on seized loose sheets and allied material. The seized papers, at best, showed tentative or projected figures and did not establish actual on-money payment or receipt. No unaccounted cash was proved to have passed between purchaser and seller, and there was no supporting statement from the seller admitting extra consideration. With the addition already deleted in the purchaser&#039;s case and no corresponding addition in the seller&#039;s hands, the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proving understatement of consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>