<?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 (12) TMI 518 - ITAT PANAJI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269214</link>
    <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to delete the addition of Rs. 3.80 crores as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer&#039;s reliance on inadmissible statements without allowing cross-examination was unjustified. The ITAT emphasized that the assessee had provided substantial documentation proving the genuineness of the transactions, meeting the burden of proof under Section 68. Additionally, the ITAT ruled that the reopening of the case for verification purposes was impermissible under the law, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:25:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=408354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 518 - ITAT PANAJI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269214</link>
      <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to delete the addition of Rs. 3.80 crores as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer&#039;s reliance on inadmissible statements without allowing cross-examination was unjustified. The ITAT emphasized that the assessee had provided substantial documentation proving the genuineness of the transactions, meeting the burden of proof under Section 68. Additionally, the ITAT ruled that the reopening of the case for verification purposes was impermissible under the law, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269214</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>