<?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 (11) TMI 1352 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351473</link>
    <description>The Tribunal invalidated the reassessment under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, ruling that there was no new material to justify the reopening after four years. The addition of Rs. 65 lakhs as unexplained cash credit under section 68 was deemed unsustainable as the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts in the original return. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities&#039; orders, quashed the reassessment, and deleted the entire addition of Rs. 65 lakhs, allowing the assessee&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Nov 2017 08:07:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1352 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351473</link>
      <description>The Tribunal invalidated the reassessment under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, ruling that there was no new material to justify the reopening after four years. The addition of Rs. 65 lakhs as unexplained cash credit under section 68 was deemed unsustainable as the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts in the original return. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities&#039; orders, quashed the reassessment, and deleted the entire addition of Rs. 65 lakhs, allowing the assessee&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>