<?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>2013 (11) TMI 1483 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240306</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found the original assessment order defective due to reasons for reopening not provided to the assessee. The Tribunal directed the AO to rectify the defect and pass a fresh assessment order. The AO was instructed to consider objections from the assessee and conduct a de novo assessment on merits after rectifying the defect. The Tribunal set aside the matter for the AO to evaluate a claim for adjustment of loss on account of debtor rejection and allowed the ground for statistical purposes. The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained cash payments as the appellant failed to substantiate them. The appeal was partly allowed in November 2013.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 05:47:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337664" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1483 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240306</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found the original assessment order defective due to reasons for reopening not provided to the assessee. The Tribunal directed the AO to rectify the defect and pass a fresh assessment order. The AO was instructed to consider objections from the assessee and conduct a de novo assessment on merits after rectifying the defect. The Tribunal set aside the matter for the AO to evaluate a claim for adjustment of loss on account of debtor rejection and allowed the ground for statistical purposes. The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained cash payments as the appellant failed to substantiate them. The appeal was partly allowed in November 2013.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>