<?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>2008 (10) TMI 62 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32107</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal related to the house property. It held that the difference in undisclosed income found by the valuer and disclosed by the assessees was meager and should be ignored. The Court emphasized the practical challenges in valuing a property and the lack of a statutory provision to determine a specific percentage for discrepancies.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 62 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32107</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal related to the house property. It held that the difference in undisclosed income found by the valuer and disclosed by the assessees was meager and should be ignored. The Court emphasized the practical challenges in valuing a property and the lack of a statutory provision to determine a specific percentage for discrepancies.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32107</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>