<?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 (11) TMI 838 - ITAT, New Delhi</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205921</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the telecom consultancy company&#039;s appeal, finding that it had adequately proven the genuineness of the share application money. The addition of Rs.1,43,37,219/- as unexplained investment in share capital was deleted, and the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the significance of following legal precedents and correctly assigning the burden of proof in cases concerning unexplained investments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 01:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 838 - ITAT, New Delhi</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205921</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the telecom consultancy company&#039;s appeal, finding that it had adequately proven the genuineness of the share application money. The addition of Rs.1,43,37,219/- as unexplained investment in share capital was deleted, and the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the significance of following legal precedents and correctly assigning the burden of proof in cases concerning unexplained investments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205921</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>