<?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>2022 (3) TMI 564 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419526</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of undisclosed income from a property sale, except for a disputed amount of Rs. 2,44,166. The burden of proof regarding the receipt of sale proceeds was on the assessee, who failed to provide evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision on the stamp duty addition, ultimately dismissing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2022 07:47:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=672813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 564 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419526</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of undisclosed income from a property sale, except for a disputed amount of Rs. 2,44,166. The burden of proof regarding the receipt of sale proceeds was on the assessee, who failed to provide evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision on the stamp duty addition, ultimately dismissing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419526</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>