<?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 (3) TMI 998 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405670</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer by the ITAT for reconsideration of the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act. The ITAT emphasized the necessity for a proper explanation and directed the assessee to provide the required evidences regarding the difference in the capital account balance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2021 09:32:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=639823" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 998 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405670</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer by the ITAT for reconsideration of the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act. The ITAT emphasized the necessity for a proper explanation and directed the assessee to provide the required evidences regarding the difference in the capital account balance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405670</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>