<?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>2009 (12) TMI 953 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180886</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the reopening of assessment under sec. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to the appellant&#039;s involvement with M/s. MKM Finsec (P) Ltd., as income was found to have escaped assessment. Additionally, the ITAT supported the deletion of the Rs. 40 lacs addition, as the sale of investments through M/s. MKM Finsec (P) Ltd. did not result in any capital gains or losses. Both the appeal and cross-objection were dismissed, affirming the reopening of assessment and the deletion of the Rs. 40 lacs addition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2016 10:46:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422449" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 953 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180886</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the reopening of assessment under sec. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to the appellant&#039;s involvement with M/s. MKM Finsec (P) Ltd., as income was found to have escaped assessment. Additionally, the ITAT supported the deletion of the Rs. 40 lacs addition, as the sale of investments through M/s. MKM Finsec (P) Ltd. did not result in any capital gains or losses. Both the appeal and cross-objection were dismissed, affirming the reopening of assessment and the deletion of the Rs. 40 lacs addition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180886</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>