<?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 (7) TMI 284 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396615</link>
    <description>The Tribunal quashed the orders of both the AO and the CIT(A), deleting the entire addition made by the AO. The discrepancy was held to be taxed in the assessment year 2012-2013, as initially accepted by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2020 17:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 284 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396615</link>
      <description>The Tribunal quashed the orders of both the AO and the CIT(A), deleting the entire addition made by the AO. The discrepancy was held to be taxed in the assessment year 2012-2013, as initially accepted by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396615</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>