<?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 702 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269398</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal ruled that in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to make additions under section 153A of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Department&#039;s appeal was dismissed, and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee were allowed. Additionally, the tribunal emphasized that assessments not abated should be based solely on material unearthed during the search, leading to the deletion of disallowance under section 14A of the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:41:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=408912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 702 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269398</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal ruled that in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to make additions under section 153A of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Department&#039;s appeal was dismissed, and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee were allowed. Additionally, the tribunal emphasized that assessments not abated should be based solely on material unearthed during the search, leading to the deletion of disallowance under section 14A of the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269398</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>