<?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>2010 (7) TMI 1025 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177287</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to restrict the addition of undisclosed income from bank account deposits to the combined peak credit amount. The ITAT emphasized the correct application of the peak credit method for assessing undisclosed income, highlighting the importance of considering all undisclosed bank accounts collectively. The revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2023 17:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 1025 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177287</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to restrict the addition of undisclosed income from bank account deposits to the combined peak credit amount. The ITAT emphasized the correct application of the peak credit method for assessing undisclosed income, highlighting the importance of considering all undisclosed bank accounts collectively. The revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177287</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>