<?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 (5) TMI 48 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327067</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal. It rejected the CIT&#039;s order on the estimation of net profit, affirming the A.O.&#039;s proper enquiry. However, it upheld the CIT&#039;s decision on verifying unsecured loans and capital introduction, as the A.O. had not adequately examined these aspects. The Tribunal&#039;s decision in ITA No.194 of 2012 mirrored that of ITA No.191 of 2012, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 May 2016 09:31:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=426382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 48 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327067</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal. It rejected the CIT&#039;s order on the estimation of net profit, affirming the A.O.&#039;s proper enquiry. However, it upheld the CIT&#039;s decision on verifying unsecured loans and capital introduction, as the A.O. had not adequately examined these aspects. The Tribunal&#039;s decision in ITA No.194 of 2012 mirrored that of ITA No.191 of 2012, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327067</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>