<?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>1986 (8) TMI 130 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65155</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the CIT (A)&#039;s decision, concluding that the account books and sales were not entirely verifiable. The tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue, finding no merit in their arguments. Additionally, the tribunal disregarded new evidence submitted by the assessee post the CIT (A) decision due to the absence of an application under Rule 29 of the IT Tribunal Rules. Consequently, both appeals were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Feb 2011 15:43:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (8) TMI 130 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65155</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the CIT (A)&#039;s decision, concluding that the account books and sales were not entirely verifiable. The tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue, finding no merit in their arguments. Additionally, the tribunal disregarded new evidence submitted by the assessee post the CIT (A) decision due to the absence of an application under Rule 29 of the IT Tribunal Rules. Consequently, both appeals were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65155</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>