<?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>Seized Evidence Leads to Tax Additions; CIT(A) Fails to Justify Deletion of AO&#039;s Additions in Transformer Oil Case.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=41891</link>
    <description>When incriminating material was seized on the basis of which different additions were made and the fact that the assessee has itself admitted the sale and then alleged return of the transformer oil in question, the ld. CIT (A) could not have arrived at the decision to delete the addition made by the AO.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2018 15:40:10 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2018 15:40:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537442" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Seized Evidence Leads to Tax Additions; CIT(A) Fails to Justify Deletion of AO&#039;s Additions in Transformer Oil Case.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=41891</link>
      <description>When incriminating material was seized on the basis of which different additions were made and the fact that the assessee has itself admitted the sale and then alleged return of the transformer oil in question, the ld. CIT (A) could not have arrived at the decision to delete the addition made by the AO.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2018 15:40:10 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=41891</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>