<?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 (10) TMI 2479 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179562</link>
    <description>The ITAT, Delhi allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 8 lacs under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The ITAT held that the addition was unjustified as it was based on presumptions and inferences regarding the time gaps between cash transactions, emphasizing the need for evidence of alternative use to support such additions. This decision underscored the necessity for substantiated findings and proof in making additions under section 68, ensuring a fair assessment process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:10:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=418947" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2479 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179562</link>
      <description>The ITAT, Delhi allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 8 lacs under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The ITAT held that the addition was unjustified as it was based on presumptions and inferences regarding the time gaps between cash transactions, emphasizing the need for evidence of alternative use to support such additions. This decision underscored the necessity for substantiated findings and proof in making additions under section 68, ensuring a fair assessment process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>