<?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>2011 (10) TMI 675 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186095</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of share application money. The ITAT found that the assessee had sufficiently proven the identity and genuineness of the share applicants, shifting the burden of proof to the Revenue. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and the assessee&#039;s cross-objection, confirming that the assessment order was valid and that the AO did not comply with mandatory conditions under Sections 147 to 153.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2017 12:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440393" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (10) TMI 675 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186095</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of share application money. The ITAT found that the assessee had sufficiently proven the identity and genuineness of the share applicants, shifting the burden of proof to the Revenue. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and the assessee&#039;s cross-objection, confirming that the assessment order was valid and that the AO did not comply with mandatory conditions under Sections 147 to 153.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>