<?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>2016 (10) TMI 1220 - ITAT INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274545</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 38 lacs to the assessee firm&#039;s income based on a partner&#039;s statement during a survey, despite the firm&#039;s argument that the statement was made under a misunderstanding and without consultation. The Tribunal found the partner&#039;s statement binding on the firm as it was voluntarily made and not retracted. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of retraction or evidence to prove the statement incorrect, justifying the addition and dismissing the assessee&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2018 06:37:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=531432" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 1220 - ITAT INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274545</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 38 lacs to the assessee firm&#039;s income based on a partner&#039;s statement during a survey, despite the firm&#039;s argument that the statement was made under a misunderstanding and without consultation. The Tribunal found the partner&#039;s statement binding on the firm as it was voluntarily made and not retracted. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of retraction or evidence to prove the statement incorrect, justifying the addition and dismissing the assessee&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274545</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>