<?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>2012 (4) TMI 725 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196228</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging the addition of an unsecured loan under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the loan was genuine and part of a joint venture agreement, deleting a portion of the addition. Despite the lack of a confirmation letter, the Tribunal emphasized the transaction&#039;s legitimacy and business purpose, ruling that Section 68 conditions were not met. Costs were not awarded in the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:59:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497295" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 725 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196228</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging the addition of an unsecured loan under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the loan was genuine and part of a joint venture agreement, deleting a portion of the addition. Despite the lack of a confirmation letter, the Tribunal emphasized the transaction&#039;s legitimacy and business purpose, ruling that Section 68 conditions were not met. Costs were not awarded in the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196228</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>