<?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 753 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327772</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, remanding the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for verification. It upheld the ad hoc addition for unrecorded purchases, emphasizing the entire sum should be taxed due to the lack of explanation on the source of funds. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was pronounced on 6.4.2016.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 May 2016 10:23:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428747" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 753 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327772</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, remanding the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for verification. It upheld the ad hoc addition for unrecorded purchases, emphasizing the entire sum should be taxed due to the lack of explanation on the source of funds. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was pronounced on 6.4.2016.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>