<?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>2021 (1) TMI 462 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402870</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. It was held that the AO could not estimate income without rejecting the books of account or providing material evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that mere admission by the assessee cannot be the sole basis for income estimation without proper verification and evidence. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous. Both the Revenue&#039;s appeal and the assessee&#039;s cross objections were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2021 11:40:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=632940" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (1) TMI 462 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402870</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. It was held that the AO could not estimate income without rejecting the books of account or providing material evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that mere admission by the assessee cannot be the sole basis for income estimation without proper verification and evidence. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous. Both the Revenue&#039;s appeal and the assessee&#039;s cross objections were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402870</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>