<?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>2019 (4) TMI 99 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377655</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision in a tax case involving alleged violations of Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Department&#039;s appeal was dismissed as they failed to provide new evidence supporting the alleged violations. The ITAT referenced prior decisions where similar transactions were deemed compliant with Section 11. Consequently, the exemption under Section 11 was justified, and the Department&#039;s appeal and the assessee&#039;s cross-objection were both dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2019 07:26:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565167" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 99 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377655</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision in a tax case involving alleged violations of Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Department&#039;s appeal was dismissed as they failed to provide new evidence supporting the alleged violations. The ITAT referenced prior decisions where similar transactions were deemed compliant with Section 11. Consequently, the exemption under Section 11 was justified, and the Department&#039;s appeal and the assessee&#039;s cross-objection were both dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377655</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>