<?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>2025 (4) TMI 331 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768417</link>
    <description>In block assessment proceedings, additions may be sustained on the basis of incriminating search material read with an unretracted statement under section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and such evidence was treated as sufficient here. The court also accepted the finding that no material supported the assessee&#039;s claim that the father contributed to the house construction cost, so no credit was required for that alleged contribution. Additions relating to valuables, plots, rent and marriage expenses were likewise upheld because seized documents, receipts, diary entries and the assessee&#039;s admissions supported them, and the factual findings disclosed no arbitrariness or evidentiary defect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2025 08:32:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=812235" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 331 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768417</link>
      <description>In block assessment proceedings, additions may be sustained on the basis of incriminating search material read with an unretracted statement under section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and such evidence was treated as sufficient here. The court also accepted the finding that no material supported the assessee&#039;s claim that the father contributed to the house construction cost, so no credit was required for that alleged contribution. Additions relating to valuables, plots, rent and marriage expenses were likewise upheld because seized documents, receipts, diary entries and the assessee&#039;s admissions supported them, and the factual findings disclosed no arbitrariness or evidentiary defect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768417</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>