<?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 (6) TMI 471 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248567</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed both the Assessee and Revenue appeals, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision. It clarified that Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act applies to borrowers, not lenders, and emphasized the need for evidence of business purposes in transactions. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made under Section 2(22)(e) by the Assessing Officer, stating that the provision could not be applied to the Assessee&#039;s hands.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2014 22:21:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357589" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 471 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248567</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed both the Assessee and Revenue appeals, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision. It clarified that Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act applies to borrowers, not lenders, and emphasized the need for evidence of business purposes in transactions. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made under Section 2(22)(e) by the Assessing Officer, stating that the provision could not be applied to the Assessee&#039;s hands.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248567</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>