<?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 (10) TMI 414 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333394</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the additions of Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 15,00,000/- as rental advance and advance received for property sale, respectively, due to lack of evidence and proper documentation. The additions of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 11,00,000/- were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further verification, providing the assessee with another chance to substantiate the claims. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2016 09:41:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444489" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 414 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333394</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the additions of Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 15,00,000/- as rental advance and advance received for property sale, respectively, due to lack of evidence and proper documentation. The additions of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 11,00,000/- were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further verification, providing the assessee with another chance to substantiate the claims. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>