<?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 (1) TMI 1211 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176514</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision to delete the addition of Rs. 25.75 lakhs, emphasizing that the cash flow statement provided by the assessee sufficiently demonstrated the legitimate sources of the cash deposits. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, agreeing with the CIT(A)&#039;s assessment that the assessee had adequately explained the source of deposits, which the Assessing Officer had failed to consider.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2015 22:12:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 1211 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176514</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision to delete the addition of Rs. 25.75 lakhs, emphasizing that the cash flow statement provided by the assessee sufficiently demonstrated the legitimate sources of the cash deposits. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, agreeing with the CIT(A)&#039;s assessment that the assessee had adequately explained the source of deposits, which the Assessing Officer had failed to consider.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176514</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>