<?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>2015 (5) TMI 785 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259911</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, limiting the addition in the appellant&#039;s hands to Rs. 3,48,10,000, based on her and her husband&#039;s shareholding in the company. The Tribunal attributed Rs. 1,77,00,000 to the appellant and Rs. 1,71,10,000 to her husband. The Tribunal found no evidence of the appellant receiving her share of on-money directly from her husband. The AO was permitted to take action against other shareholders accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 May 2015 07:47:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 785 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259911</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, limiting the addition in the appellant&#039;s hands to Rs. 3,48,10,000, based on her and her husband&#039;s shareholding in the company. The Tribunal attributed Rs. 1,77,00,000 to the appellant and Rs. 1,71,10,000 to her husband. The Tribunal found no evidence of the appellant receiving her share of on-money directly from her husband. The AO was permitted to take action against other shareholders accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>