<?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>1999 (2) TMI 95 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61049</link>
    <description>In block assessment, additions for alleged non-genuine gifts from NRIs were deleted because the assessee produced affidavits, donor bank records and other direct evidence, while the Revenue failed to disprove the explanation or show repayment or consideration; mere suspicion and human probability could not sustain the addition. The addition for alleged unaccounted land investment was also deleted because the seized material was not effectively confronted, the sellers denied on-money, and the deeming basis was not established. However, the school-fee entry found in the assessee&#039;s possession was specific and remained unexplained, so that addition was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:18:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99496" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 95 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61049</link>
      <description>In block assessment, additions for alleged non-genuine gifts from NRIs were deleted because the assessee produced affidavits, donor bank records and other direct evidence, while the Revenue failed to disprove the explanation or show repayment or consideration; mere suspicion and human probability could not sustain the addition. The addition for alleged unaccounted land investment was also deleted because the seized material was not effectively confronted, the sellers denied on-money, and the deeming basis was not established. However, the school-fee entry found in the assessee&#039;s possession was specific and remained unexplained, so that addition was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>