<?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 (5) TMI 234 - ITAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152088</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals and allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals, lifting the addition sustained for low household withdrawals. The Revenue&#039;s appeal against relief for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 was also dismissed due to lack of legally admissible evidence. The Tribunal confirmed additions for expenses incurred on behalf of a company and an investment in a scooter. The Accountant Member suggested further investigations, but the President agreed with the Judicial Member, deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The matter was referred back to the regular Bench for a decision according to the majority opinion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2016 11:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (5) TMI 234 - ITAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152088</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals and allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals, lifting the addition sustained for low household withdrawals. The Revenue&#039;s appeal against relief for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 was also dismissed due to lack of legally admissible evidence. The Tribunal confirmed additions for expenses incurred on behalf of a company and an investment in a scooter. The Accountant Member suggested further investigations, but the President agreed with the Judicial Member, deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The matter was referred back to the regular Bench for a decision according to the majority opinion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>