https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34247 The court held that the addition of Rs. 40,04,369 as undisclosed income based solely on the Departmental Valuation Officer's report, without any connection to evidence found during the search, was not justified. This addition was rightly deleted by the Tribunal. However, the court found that the Assessing Officer should have segregated personal expenses from business expenses instead of adding the entire amount of Rs. 14,98,282 as undisclosed income. This issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The appeal was partly allowed with these outcomes. en-us Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34247 The court held that the addition of Rs. 40,04,369 as undisclosed income based solely on the Departmental Valuation Officer's report, without any connection to evidence found during the search, was not justified. This addition was rightly deleted by the Tribunal. However, the court found that the Assessing Officer should have segregated personal expenses from business expenses instead of adding the entire amount of Rs. 14,98,282 as undisclosed income. This issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The appeal was partly allowed with these outcomes. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34247