<?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 (9) TMI 570 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251544</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, remitting various issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for admitting additional evidence without proper verification and not allowing the AO a reasonable opportunity to examine it, breaching Rule 46A. The Tribunal stressed the importance of compliance with procedural rules and the necessity for thorough verification of evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2015 11:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365384" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 570 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251544</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, remitting various issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for admitting additional evidence without proper verification and not allowing the AO a reasonable opportunity to examine it, breaching Rule 46A. The Tribunal stressed the importance of compliance with procedural rules and the necessity for thorough verification of evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>