<?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>2012 (1) TMI 218 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177841</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal against the trading addition of unverifiable purchases for the assessment year 2007-08. It limited the addition to Rs. 40,000, considering the absence of closing balances in the parties&#039; accounts and comparing it to a previous case. The Tribunal found the gross profit rates and sales figures justified this reduced amount, diverging from the earlier decisions of the AO and CIT(A) who had upheld the higher addition. The judgment was delivered by the ITAT Jaipur on 25-01-2012.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=413703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (1) TMI 218 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177841</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal against the trading addition of unverifiable purchases for the assessment year 2007-08. It limited the addition to Rs. 40,000, considering the absence of closing balances in the parties&#039; accounts and comparing it to a previous case. The Tribunal found the gross profit rates and sales figures justified this reduced amount, diverging from the earlier decisions of the AO and CIT(A) who had upheld the higher addition. The judgment was delivered by the ITAT Jaipur on 25-01-2012.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177841</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>