<?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>2004 (9) TMI 349 - ITAT JODHPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68607</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 84,000 by the CIT(A) towards unexplained expenditure on the marriages of the assessee&#039;s son and daughter for the assessment year 1982-83. The Tribunal found that the AO&#039;s conclusions lacked a solid legal basis and were based on presumptions without substantial evidence. Emphasizing the importance of considering all evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the Department&#039;s appeal, highlighting the need for a factual and reasoned approach in estimating income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:05:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107001" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 349 - ITAT JODHPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68607</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 84,000 by the CIT(A) towards unexplained expenditure on the marriages of the assessee&#039;s son and daughter for the assessment year 1982-83. The Tribunal found that the AO&#039;s conclusions lacked a solid legal basis and were based on presumptions without substantial evidence. Emphasizing the importance of considering all evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the Department&#039;s appeal, highlighting the need for a factual and reasoned approach in estimating income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68607</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>