<?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>2018 (7) TMI 291 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362983</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, ruling that no separate addition was required in the hands of the assessee for the undisclosed receipts of Doctors fees. The Tribunal held that since the assessee admitted all receipts in the return of income after reconstructing the books of accounts, no additional income needed to be added, overturning the lower authorities&#039; decision to include Rs. 10 lakhs as undisclosed income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2018 08:16:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525915" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 291 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362983</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, ruling that no separate addition was required in the hands of the assessee for the undisclosed receipts of Doctors fees. The Tribunal held that since the assessee admitted all receipts in the return of income after reconstructing the books of accounts, no additional income needed to be added, overturning the lower authorities&#039; decision to include Rs. 10 lakhs as undisclosed income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>