<?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 (3) TMI 587 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325403</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee, directing the deletion of additions made by the AO and CIT(A) related to the assessed income from profit in future and option transactions under section 68. The Tribunal held that if income cannot be taxed under any head, it cannot be taxed at all, and as the AO did not specify any provision for separate taxation, the addition was deleted. Additionally, the Tribunal disagreed with the addition of deemed interest income, stating that notional income on lending cannot be taxed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:11:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420540" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 587 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325403</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee, directing the deletion of additions made by the AO and CIT(A) related to the assessed income from profit in future and option transactions under section 68. The Tribunal held that if income cannot be taxed under any head, it cannot be taxed at all, and as the AO did not specify any provision for separate taxation, the addition was deleted. Additionally, the Tribunal disagreed with the addition of deemed interest income, stating that notional income on lending cannot be taxed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325403</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>