<?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>1998 (2) TMI 160 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63999</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, setting aside the addition of Rs. 14,81,827 to the taxable income. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessee&#039;s hybrid system of accounting, noting its consistency and acceptance in accounting practices. It found no evidence that this method misrepresented profits and determined that the Assessing Officer did not exceed his jurisdiction in complying with the CIT(Appeals) directions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:47:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102441" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 160 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63999</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, setting aside the addition of Rs. 14,81,827 to the taxable income. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessee&#039;s hybrid system of accounting, noting its consistency and acceptance in accounting practices. It found no evidence that this method misrepresented profits and determined that the Assessing Officer did not exceed his jurisdiction in complying with the CIT(Appeals) directions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63999</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>