<?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 (12) TMI 423 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352154</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal in part. It deleted the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act as the assessee provided necessary documents establishing the identity and creditworthiness of depositors. Consequently, the disallowance of interest paid by the assessee was also deemed unjustified and was allowed. However, the ITAT dismissed the ground related to Section 69C as the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on it. The order was pronounced on 13/11/2017.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2017 09:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=499064" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 423 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352154</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal in part. It deleted the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act as the assessee provided necessary documents establishing the identity and creditworthiness of depositors. Consequently, the disallowance of interest paid by the assessee was also deemed unjustified and was allowed. However, the ITAT dismissed the ground related to Section 69C as the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on it. The order was pronounced on 13/11/2017.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>