<?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 (11) TMI 538 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218523</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid as the Assessing Officer lacked tangible material to support the belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal also ruled that the disallowance under section 14A was not justified, as there was no evidence to prove that loans were used for investments generating exempt income. Consequently, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191895" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 538 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218523</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid as the Assessing Officer lacked tangible material to support the belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal also ruled that the disallowance under section 14A was not justified, as there was no evidence to prove that loans were used for investments generating exempt income. Consequently, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218523</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>