<?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 (9) TMI 203 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331942</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]&#039;s decision, allowing the assessee a 100% deduction under section 80IC despite filing the revised return after the due date. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding the acceptance of additional evidence under Rule 46A, as no evidence was accepted without giving the Assessing Officer (AO) an opportunity to respond. The decision was pronounced on 29th July 2016.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2016 13:22:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440197" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 203 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331942</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]&#039;s decision, allowing the assessee a 100% deduction under section 80IC despite filing the revised return after the due date. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding the acceptance of additional evidence under Rule 46A, as no evidence was accepted without giving the Assessing Officer (AO) an opportunity to respond. The decision was pronounced on 29th July 2016.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331942</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>