<?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>2013 (8) TMI 988 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180348</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and partially allowed the assessee&#039;s cross-objection. The disallowance of excess interest paid to a sister concern was remanded for further examination. The addition under Section 40A(2)(b) for excess discount allowed to another sister concern was deleted, pending review of any existing agreements. The addition for suppressed receipts from a specific party was deleted, subject to a reevaluation of quality differences in job work. The dispute regarding dividend stripping was resolved in favor of the assessee. The addition for work-in-progress was ultimately deleted, aligning with precedent. Interest charges were deemed consequential by the Tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:42:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 988 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180348</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and partially allowed the assessee&#039;s cross-objection. The disallowance of excess interest paid to a sister concern was remanded for further examination. The addition under Section 40A(2)(b) for excess discount allowed to another sister concern was deleted, pending review of any existing agreements. The addition for suppressed receipts from a specific party was deleted, subject to a reevaluation of quality differences in job work. The dispute regarding dividend stripping was resolved in favor of the assessee. The addition for work-in-progress was ultimately deleted, aligning with precedent. Interest charges were deemed consequential by the Tribunal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180348</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>