<?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>2017 (8) TMI 1187 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347129</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and deleting the addition of Rs. 5,08,870/- in the hands of the assessee due to lack of corroborative evidence and inconsistencies in the revenue&#039;s stance. The decision underscores the necessity of concrete evidence for making additions based on seized documents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487225" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1187 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347129</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and deleting the addition of Rs. 5,08,870/- in the hands of the assessee due to lack of corroborative evidence and inconsistencies in the revenue&#039;s stance. The decision underscores the necessity of concrete evidence for making additions based on seized documents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>