<?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>2006 (11) TMI 243 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63826</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision in a case involving reassessment proceedings due to a variance in construction costs. The assessee successfully argued for deductions under s. 37 of the IT Act, resulting in the additions made by the AO being deleted. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming that the unexplained expenditure should be allowed as a deduction. The relief granted to the assessee was upheld, and the appeals were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102268" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 243 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63826</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision in a case involving reassessment proceedings due to a variance in construction costs. The assessee successfully argued for deductions under s. 37 of the IT Act, resulting in the additions made by the AO being deleted. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming that the unexplained expenditure should be allowed as a deduction. The relief granted to the assessee was upheld, and the appeals were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>