<?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>2018 (6) TMI 1677 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284910</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT (A)&#039;s decision to delete the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act regarding unexplained cash credit. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the proceedings under Section 153C were invalid as they were not based on relevant incriminating material pertaining to the assessment year in question. The AO&#039;s addition was considered speculative, and it was noted that proper assessment should have been done in the hands of the relevant entity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:39:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=597457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 1677 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284910</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT (A)&#039;s decision to delete the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act regarding unexplained cash credit. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the proceedings under Section 153C were invalid as they were not based on relevant incriminating material pertaining to the assessment year in question. The AO&#039;s addition was considered speculative, and it was noted that proper assessment should have been done in the hands of the relevant entity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284910</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>