<?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>2016 (1) TMI 29 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270237</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition of unexplained investment under section 69B of the Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantial evidence beyond stamp duty valuation to establish unexplained investments and highlighted the limitations of deeming provisions like section 50C in such cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2016 12:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=411421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 29 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270237</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition of unexplained investment under section 69B of the Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantial evidence beyond stamp duty valuation to establish unexplained investments and highlighted the limitations of deeming provisions like section 50C in such cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270237</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>