<?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 (12) TMI 675 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194525</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the action of survey under section 133A and search under section 132(1) of the IT Act as not pressed. Regarding additions on unexplained investment in Gold Jewellery, excess stock found during search, and trading additions, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)&#039;s findings. However, it deleted the entire addition on excess stock valuation discrepancies. The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal on disallowance of unverifiable purchases. The issue of interest accrued on KVP and FDR was sent back to the AO for re-examination. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision on certain expenses but deleted the addition on construction cost discrepancies.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2017 17:07:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 675 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194525</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the action of survey under section 133A and search under section 132(1) of the IT Act as not pressed. Regarding additions on unexplained investment in Gold Jewellery, excess stock found during search, and trading additions, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)&#039;s findings. However, it deleted the entire addition on excess stock valuation discrepancies. The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal on disallowance of unverifiable purchases. The issue of interest accrued on KVP and FDR was sent back to the AO for re-examination. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision on certain expenses but deleted the addition on construction cost discrepancies.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194525</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>