<?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>2011 (12) TMI 526 - ITAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174379</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the decision of the CIT (A) regarding the deletion of addition on account of setting off loss from trading in commodities against business income. The Tribunal found that the additional income declared by the assessee covered the disallowed amount, leading to the rejection of the revenue&#039;s arguments. Additionally, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT (A) on the treatment of the loss as speculative in nature, further supporting the assessee&#039;s position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2015 15:36:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400369" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 526 - ITAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174379</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the decision of the CIT (A) regarding the deletion of addition on account of setting off loss from trading in commodities against business income. The Tribunal found that the additional income declared by the assessee covered the disallowed amount, leading to the rejection of the revenue&#039;s arguments. Additionally, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT (A) on the treatment of the loss as speculative in nature, further supporting the assessee&#039;s position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174379</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>