<?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 (10) TMI 1069 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265794</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)&#039;s decision to delete the addition under section 69B, emphasizing the necessity of evidence of understatements before invoking such provisions. The judgment clarified the distinction between valuation reports for capital gains and undisclosed investments, ultimately dismissing the revenue&#039;s appeal and affirming the deletion of the addition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:13:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1069 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265794</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)&#039;s decision to delete the addition under section 69B, emphasizing the necessity of evidence of understatements before invoking such provisions. The judgment clarified the distinction between valuation reports for capital gains and undisclosed investments, ultimately dismissing the revenue&#039;s appeal and affirming the deletion of the addition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265794</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>