<?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>2016 (1) TMI 1442 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286202</link>
    <description>The Tribunal invalidated the reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, finding the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer to be vague and lacking tangible material. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the AO to independently form a belief that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 under Section 68 was not addressed due to the quashing of the reassessment. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed as the tax effect fell below the appeal filing limit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2020 15:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=604106" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1442 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286202</link>
      <description>The Tribunal invalidated the reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, finding the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer to be vague and lacking tangible material. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the AO to independently form a belief that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 under Section 68 was not addressed due to the quashing of the reassessment. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed as the tax effect fell below the appeal filing limit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286202</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>