<?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>2013 (10) TMI 1522 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280889</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that each company must explain credits in its books separately and only peak unexplained credit should be taxed. The commission income should be determined based on cash transactions. Assessments must be made individually for each entity, considering the totality of circumstances. Taxation should focus on the initial cash deposit to avoid multiple taxation due to circular transactions. The AO was directed to reexamine the case and ensure no double taxation, with the burden of proof on the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2019 14:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=572554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1522 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280889</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that each company must explain credits in its books separately and only peak unexplained credit should be taxed. The commission income should be determined based on cash transactions. Assessments must be made individually for each entity, considering the totality of circumstances. Taxation should focus on the initial cash deposit to avoid multiple taxation due to circular transactions. The AO was directed to reexamine the case and ensure no double taxation, with the burden of proof on the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>