<?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 (12) TMI 469 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240804</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, granting benefit of double addition made during assessment proceedings but sustaining the remaining addition of Rs. 48,70,913 on account of unexplained trade creditors under section 68 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The Tribunal directed re-verification of trade creditors who did not respond to notices to ensure a fair assessment based on confirmed information, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach in determining the genuineness of trade transactions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:10:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338975" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 469 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240804</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, granting benefit of double addition made during assessment proceedings but sustaining the remaining addition of Rs. 48,70,913 on account of unexplained trade creditors under section 68 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The Tribunal directed re-verification of trade creditors who did not respond to notices to ensure a fair assessment based on confirmed information, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach in determining the genuineness of trade transactions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240804</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>