<?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 (10) TMI 937 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186362</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal against an addition made by the AO for low household drawing. The CIT(A)&#039;s reduction of the addition was set aside due to lack of evidence from the Revenue to prove higher expenses. Emphasizing the need for evidence under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, the ITAT referred to a relevant case law and deleted the addition. The appeal was allowed as neither the Revenue nor the DR provided evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:21:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441263" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 937 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186362</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal against an addition made by the AO for low household drawing. The CIT(A)&#039;s reduction of the addition was set aside due to lack of evidence from the Revenue to prove higher expenses. Emphasizing the need for evidence under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, the ITAT referred to a relevant case law and deleted the addition. The appeal was allowed as neither the Revenue nor the DR provided evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186362</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>