<?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>1994 (12) TMI 133 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68148</link>
    <description>The ITAT Jaipur allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee for the assessment year 1990-91. The estimation of yield and sales price was contested, with the Assessing Officer&#039;s addition of Rs. 1,02,711 being reduced by CIT(A) from 25% to 22%. The ITAT upheld the assessee&#039;s arguments based on historical data and industry practices, deleting the trading addition entirely. Additionally, the ITAT reversed the disallowance of Rs. 500 from miscellaneous expenses, emphasizing the need for objective review of expenses.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:55:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=106550" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (12) TMI 133 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68148</link>
      <description>The ITAT Jaipur allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee for the assessment year 1990-91. The estimation of yield and sales price was contested, with the Assessing Officer&#039;s addition of Rs. 1,02,711 being reduced by CIT(A) from 25% to 22%. The ITAT upheld the assessee&#039;s arguments based on historical data and industry practices, deleting the trading addition entirely. Additionally, the ITAT reversed the disallowance of Rs. 500 from miscellaneous expenses, emphasizing the need for objective review of expenses.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>