<?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>2000 (3) TMI 176 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63057</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, excluding or setting aside various additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal held that the block assessment order was within the limitation period as per the relevant provisions. It also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding additions related to cash credits, sarson business, Neelgagan Pad entries, and investment in a building, directing fresh consideration by the AO in some instances due to procedural irregularities and lack of evidence supporting the additions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:54:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=101501" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 176 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63057</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, excluding or setting aside various additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal held that the block assessment order was within the limitation period as per the relevant provisions. It also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding additions related to cash credits, sarson business, Neelgagan Pad entries, and investment in a building, directing fresh consideration by the AO in some instances due to procedural irregularities and lack of evidence supporting the additions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63057</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>