<?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>2020 (1) TMI 955 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391342</link>
    <description>The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act regarding three sundry creditors was unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and directed the AO to delete the addition. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, emphasizing that trading results were accepted, and payments to creditors were substantiated in subsequent years. The order was pronounced on 21.01.2020, in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:15:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601488" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 955 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391342</link>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act regarding three sundry creditors was unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and directed the AO to delete the addition. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, emphasizing that trading results were accepted, and payments to creditors were substantiated in subsequent years. The order was pronounced on 21.01.2020, in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>