<?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 (3) TMI 330 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61579</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal concerning the addition of Rs. 1,40,500 out of Rs. 1,53,360 for the assessment year 1996-97. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to reduce the addition to Rs. 12,860, as the assessee&#039;s explanation regarding the sales discrepancy was deemed satisfactory and verified with excise records. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision based on the verified facts and explanations provided by the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:30:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=100026" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 330 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61579</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal concerning the addition of Rs. 1,40,500 out of Rs. 1,53,360 for the assessment year 1996-97. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to reduce the addition to Rs. 12,860, as the assessee&#039;s explanation regarding the sales discrepancy was deemed satisfactory and verified with excise records. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision based on the verified facts and explanations provided by the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61579</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>