<?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 (6) TMI 905 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188190</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to partially delete the addition of unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the I.T. Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The CIT(A) applied the peak credit method, restricting the addition to a certain amount. Despite the Department&#039;s argument against the method&#039;s applicability based on bank transactions, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)&#039;s order justified. The decision confirmed the partial deletion of the addition, dismissing the Department&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:21:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=448602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 905 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188190</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to partially delete the addition of unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the I.T. Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The CIT(A) applied the peak credit method, restricting the addition to a certain amount. Despite the Department&#039;s argument against the method&#039;s applicability based on bank transactions, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)&#039;s order justified. The decision confirmed the partial deletion of the addition, dismissing the Department&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188190</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>