<?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 (6) TMI 635 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396260</link>
    <description>In a block assessment, undisclosed income must be determined strictly from material found during search and other evidence directly relatable to that material. Additions based only on statements, diary entries, or uncorroborated references to alleged transactions were found unsustainable where no seized document, primary evidence, or independent proof established the assessee&#039;s nexus with the sale of Naphtha on premium, delivery-order dealings, alleged Ahmedabad concerns, foreign tour , or household withdrawals. The Tribunal&#039;s deletion of the additions was upheld because the record did not show incriminating material or proven connection to the assessee, and the matter turned on concurrent findings of fact.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=616124" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 635 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396260</link>
      <description>In a block assessment, undisclosed income must be determined strictly from material found during search and other evidence directly relatable to that material. Additions based only on statements, diary entries, or uncorroborated references to alleged transactions were found unsustainable where no seized document, primary evidence, or independent proof established the assessee&#039;s nexus with the sale of Naphtha on premium, delivery-order dealings, alleged Ahmedabad concerns, foreign tour , or household withdrawals. The Tribunal&#039;s deletion of the additions was upheld because the record did not show incriminating material or proven connection to the assessee, and the matter turned on concurrent findings of fact.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396260</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>