<?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 (7) TMI 184 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409342</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the addition of Rs. 1,86,47,974/- related to client code modification, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence and reliance on presumptions by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also rejected the Cross Objection challenging the validity of the reassessment notice and order, as the main issue was already decided in favor of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantiated evidence in tax assessments involving client code modifications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 15:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=648806" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (7) TMI 184 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409342</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the addition of Rs. 1,86,47,974/- related to client code modification, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence and reliance on presumptions by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also rejected the Cross Objection challenging the validity of the reassessment notice and order, as the main issue was already decided in favor of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantiated evidence in tax assessments involving client code modifications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>