<?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>2014 (1) TMI 305 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242080</link>
    <description>The tribunal partially allowed the appeal by the assessee. It ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues, stating that the Assessing Officer was within rights to reopen the assessment due to the original return being processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. However, the tribunal held that the provision for bad debts was actually a write-off, not a provision, and allowed the appeal by deleting the addition made under Section 115JA for provision for bad debts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 09:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 305 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242080</link>
      <description>The tribunal partially allowed the appeal by the assessee. It ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues, stating that the Assessing Officer was within rights to reopen the assessment due to the original return being processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. However, the tribunal held that the provision for bad debts was actually a write-off, not a provision, and allowed the appeal by deleting the addition made under Section 115JA for provision for bad debts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242080</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>