<?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>2014 (7) TMI 1283 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277322</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to restrict the addition under section 69A of the Income-tax Act to Rs. 2,80,000 for the assessment year 2007-08. The ITAT emphasized the importance of considering both withdrawals and deposits in bank accounts for determining additions, supporting the peak amount analysis conducted by the CIT(A). The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed as the ITAT found no fault in the CIT(A)&#039;s calculation and accepted the evidence provided by the assessee regarding the source of deposits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2018 12:35:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544920" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 1283 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277322</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to restrict the addition under section 69A of the Income-tax Act to Rs. 2,80,000 for the assessment year 2007-08. The ITAT emphasized the importance of considering both withdrawals and deposits in bank accounts for determining additions, supporting the peak amount analysis conducted by the CIT(A). The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed as the ITAT found no fault in the CIT(A)&#039;s calculation and accepted the evidence provided by the assessee regarding the source of deposits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277322</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>