<?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 (7) TMI 666 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382970</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed all appeals, deleting the additions made under Section 2(22)(e) and Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to the validity of deemed dividends and cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the amounts received were security deposits under a lease agreement, not dividends, and the source of cash deposits was explained adequately. The additions were deemed unjustified, and the Tribunal ordered their deletion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=579228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 666 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382970</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed all appeals, deleting the additions made under Section 2(22)(e) and Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to the validity of deemed dividends and cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the amounts received were security deposits under a lease agreement, not dividends, and the source of cash deposits was explained adequately. The additions were deemed unjustified, and the Tribunal ordered their deletion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382970</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>