<?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 555 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246118</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete an addition of Rs.11,53,897 made on account of provision of doubtful debts for the AY 2007-08. The Revenue&#039;s challenge was dismissed as the original assessment accepted the claim, indicating no query was raised or the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation provided. The ITAT emphasized the need for consistency in tax assessments and proper documentation, favoring the assessee&#039;s position based on the accepted claim during the original assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2014 06:23:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 555 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246118</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete an addition of Rs.11,53,897 made on account of provision of doubtful debts for the AY 2007-08. The Revenue&#039;s challenge was dismissed as the original assessment accepted the claim, indicating no query was raised or the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation provided. The ITAT emphasized the need for consistency in tax assessments and proper documentation, favoring the assessee&#039;s position based on the accepted claim during the original assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246118</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>