<?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>2010 (10) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78797</link>
    <description>The delay condonation application in the appeal filing was explained and allowed. The High Court upheld the ITAT order on ad hoc addition and fresh evidence under Rule 46-A of IT Rules. The Court found no error in the ITAT order and dismissed the Income Tax Appeal, agreeing with the CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal findings. The reasons for additions were deemed justified, and no fresh evidence was submitted under Rule 46-A of the IT Rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Dec 2010 00:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116901" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78797</link>
      <description>The delay condonation application in the appeal filing was explained and allowed. The High Court upheld the ITAT order on ad hoc addition and fresh evidence under Rule 46-A of IT Rules. The Court found no error in the ITAT order and dismissed the Income Tax Appeal, agreeing with the CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal findings. The reasons for additions were deemed justified, and no fresh evidence was submitted under Rule 46-A of the IT Rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78797</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>