<?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>2012 (6) TMI 895 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286579</link>
    <description>The Tax Appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal found that no substantial question of law was raised regarding the deletion of additions related to an increase in share capital and an unsecured loan under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal&#039;s decision aligned with established principles, indicating that the revenue could pursue proceedings against investors rather than the receiving company for such additions. The factual findings confirmed by the Tribunal and CIT(Appeals) led to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2020 16:08:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=605909" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 895 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286579</link>
      <description>The Tax Appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal found that no substantial question of law was raised regarding the deletion of additions related to an increase in share capital and an unsecured loan under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal&#039;s decision aligned with established principles, indicating that the revenue could pursue proceedings against investors rather than the receiving company for such additions. The factual findings confirmed by the Tribunal and CIT(Appeals) led to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286579</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>