<?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 (3) TMI 389 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61549</link>
    <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeal against the deletion of additions on account of undisclosed investments/loans/advances and interest earned by the assessee for the block period 1st April, 1988 to 19th Nov., 1998 was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the decision to delete the additions in the assessee&#039;s assessment, as it was established that the documents in question belonged to the assessee&#039;s husband, who had admitted to the entries and filed a petition before the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal found that the ownership of the seized document, Annex. 8, was with the husband, leading to the dismissal of both the Revenue&#039;s appeal and the assessee&#039;s cross-objection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:33:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99996" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 389 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61549</link>
      <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeal against the deletion of additions on account of undisclosed investments/loans/advances and interest earned by the assessee for the block period 1st April, 1988 to 19th Nov., 1998 was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the decision to delete the additions in the assessee&#039;s assessment, as it was established that the documents in question belonged to the assessee&#039;s husband, who had admitted to the entries and filed a petition before the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal found that the ownership of the seized document, Annex. 8, was with the husband, leading to the dismissal of both the Revenue&#039;s appeal and the assessee&#039;s cross-objection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61549</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>