<?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 (8) TMI 364 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215679</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the validity of reopening proceedings for a firm under section 147, rejecting the challenge raised by the assessee. Additionally, the Tribunal confirmed the additions under section 68 for plot booking advances and capital introduced by partners due to lack of evidence supporting the transactions. In the case of an individual partner, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer, considering substantive additions in the firm&#039;s case. The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal in one assessment year and dismissed it in another, while dismissing the revenue&#039;s appeals in both years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189065" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 364 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215679</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the validity of reopening proceedings for a firm under section 147, rejecting the challenge raised by the assessee. Additionally, the Tribunal confirmed the additions under section 68 for plot booking advances and capital introduced by partners due to lack of evidence supporting the transactions. In the case of an individual partner, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer, considering substantive additions in the firm&#039;s case. The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal in one assessment year and dismissed it in another, while dismissing the revenue&#039;s appeals in both years.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215679</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>