<?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 (8) TMI 1252 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365780</link>
    <description>Estimated disallowances must be supported by specific defects in the books and cannot rest on blanket assumptions. The Tribunal held that uniform adoption of a minimum making-charge rate for gold ornaments was unjustified where rates varied by design, size and skill, so the addition was reduced. The section 68 addition for the Veer Jewellers difference was deleted because the purchase, stock movement and reconciliation were explained in the accounts. Credit card expenses were partly disallowed for lack of full business proof, while the customer-gift disallowance was restricted to a smaller estimate. Declared agricultural income was accepted and the interest disallowance was deleted because sufficient interest-free funds were available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:36:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=531742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1252 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365780</link>
      <description>Estimated disallowances must be supported by specific defects in the books and cannot rest on blanket assumptions. The Tribunal held that uniform adoption of a minimum making-charge rate for gold ornaments was unjustified where rates varied by design, size and skill, so the addition was reduced. The section 68 addition for the Veer Jewellers difference was deleted because the purchase, stock movement and reconciliation were explained in the accounts. Credit card expenses were partly disallowed for lack of full business proof, while the customer-gift disallowance was restricted to a smaller estimate. Declared agricultural income was accepted and the interest disallowance was deleted because sufficient interest-free funds were available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>