<?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 946 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218931</link>
    <description>A remand limited to reconsideration of additions on the existing record did not permit the first appellate authority to decide a fresh jurisdictional objection to compulsory scrutiny selection, so that objection failed. The text also states that deletions of additions for wages payable, salary payable, and alleged bogus purchases were upheld because part of the wages liability related to earlier years, the Assessing Officer&#039;s estimate lacked a proper basis, and the purchases addition was made without adequate opportunity or sustainable factual support. The Revenue succeeded only on the jurisdictional point, while the assessee succeeded on the additions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192301" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 946 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218931</link>
      <description>A remand limited to reconsideration of additions on the existing record did not permit the first appellate authority to decide a fresh jurisdictional objection to compulsory scrutiny selection, so that objection failed. The text also states that deletions of additions for wages payable, salary payable, and alleged bogus purchases were upheld because part of the wages liability related to earlier years, the Assessing Officer&#039;s estimate lacked a proper basis, and the purchases addition was made without adequate opportunity or sustainable factual support. The Revenue succeeded only on the jurisdictional point, while the assessee succeeded on the additions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218931</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>