<?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>2005 (10) TMI 219 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60710</link>
    <description>Block assessment under Chapter XIV-B is confined to undisclosed income detected on the basis of search material; additions resting only on presumptions, third-party statements, or post-search inquiry cannot be sustained. Amalgamation reserve arising from a High Court-sanctioned amalgamation and share application money reflected in regular books, returns, and audited accounts before the search were outside the scope of undisclosed income, so the deletion of those additions was upheld. A claim of denial of natural justice was also rejected because the Department had been served with notice and participated in the appellate proceedings, and no material showed that curtailment of time caused prejudice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:37:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99157" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 219 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60710</link>
      <description>Block assessment under Chapter XIV-B is confined to undisclosed income detected on the basis of search material; additions resting only on presumptions, third-party statements, or post-search inquiry cannot be sustained. Amalgamation reserve arising from a High Court-sanctioned amalgamation and share application money reflected in regular books, returns, and audited accounts before the search were outside the scope of undisclosed income, so the deletion of those additions was upheld. A claim of denial of natural justice was also rejected because the Department had been served with notice and participated in the appellate proceedings, and no material showed that curtailment of time caused prejudice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>