<?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>2012 (2) TMI 33 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209667</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, finding sufficient evidence to support her role as a Collecting Agent for the company. The confirmation from the company and matching bank transactions demonstrated that the deposited amount was not undisclosed income but funds collected on behalf of the company. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the addition made by the lower authorities under sections 68 and 69 of the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183111" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 33 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209667</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, finding sufficient evidence to support her role as a Collecting Agent for the company. The confirmation from the company and matching bank transactions demonstrated that the deposited amount was not undisclosed income but funds collected on behalf of the company. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the addition made by the lower authorities under sections 68 and 69 of the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209667</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>