<?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 (4) TMI 309 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245838</link>
    <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) partially allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee. The ITAT sustained an addition of Rs. 14.78 lakhs, modifying the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]&#039;s order, which had upheld an addition of Rs. 8.34 lakhs. The ITAT concluded that while the Assessing Officer&#039;s rejection of books was not entirely justified, the low profit declared by the assessee warranted a higher addition than what was sustained by the CIT(A).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2014 10:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351674" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 309 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245838</link>
      <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) partially allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee. The ITAT sustained an addition of Rs. 14.78 lakhs, modifying the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]&#039;s order, which had upheld an addition of Rs. 8.34 lakhs. The ITAT concluded that while the Assessing Officer&#039;s rejection of books was not entirely justified, the low profit declared by the assessee warranted a higher addition than what was sustained by the CIT(A).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>