<?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>2004 (9) TMI 719 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463620</link>
    <description>ITAT, Mumbai set aside additions made in a block assessment: the tribunal deleted an addition for alleged undisclosed &quot;oil gain&quot; from texturising/processing of yarn, finding no incriminating material seized or nexus between search materials and the addition, and held employee statements and third-party papers insufficient to sustain the charge. The ITAT also deleted additions based on papers received by fax at search, accepting the assessee&#039;s plea that they were not its records and holding the Department bore the burden to prove otherwise. Revenue&#039;s appeal succeeded only in procedure but substantive additions were deleted; assessee&#039;s appeal allowed, Revenue&#039;s grounds rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 17:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=849192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 719 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463620</link>
      <description>ITAT, Mumbai set aside additions made in a block assessment: the tribunal deleted an addition for alleged undisclosed &quot;oil gain&quot; from texturising/processing of yarn, finding no incriminating material seized or nexus between search materials and the addition, and held employee statements and third-party papers insufficient to sustain the charge. The ITAT also deleted additions based on papers received by fax at search, accepting the assessee&#039;s plea that they were not its records and holding the Department bore the burden to prove otherwise. Revenue&#039;s appeal succeeded only in procedure but substantive additions were deleted; assessee&#039;s appeal allowed, Revenue&#039;s grounds rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>