<?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 (9) TMI 373 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777884</link>
    <description>HC upheld refusal to allow exemption under s.10(38) where assessee failed to disclose cash purchases of penny shares in return and did not produce evidence despite opportunities. CIT(A) and ITAT found the transactions unsubstantiated and noted no prior contention about inability to produce evidence; their findings were factual. As no substantial question of law arose, the HC declined to interfere with the factual findings and left the disallowance affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2025 08:16:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=848501" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 373 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777884</link>
      <description>HC upheld refusal to allow exemption under s.10(38) where assessee failed to disclose cash purchases of penny shares in return and did not produce evidence despite opportunities. CIT(A) and ITAT found the transactions unsubstantiated and noted no prior contention about inability to produce evidence; their findings were factual. As no substantial question of law arose, the HC declined to interfere with the factual findings and left the disallowance affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777884</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>