<?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 (10) TMI 601 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399627</link>
    <description>The Tribunal concluded that Section 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act was not applicable to the advances received by the assessee as they were for business purposes and not for the transfer of a capital asset. The advances were not forfeited and remained liabilities in the assessee&#039;s books. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2020 14:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 601 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399627</link>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that Section 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act was not applicable to the advances received by the assessee as they were for business purposes and not for the transfer of a capital asset. The advances were not forfeited and remained liabilities in the assessee&#039;s books. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399627</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>