<?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 (5) TMI 715 - ITAT DEHRADUN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301559</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the appeals of the assessee in two cases involving additions of Rs. 20 lakhs and Rs. 30 lakhs made under sections 132 and 132(4) of the Income Tax Act. The additions were based on statements made during searches that were later retracted. The ITAT found the surrenders were made under pressure and lacked evidence, directing the AO to delete the additions due to insufficient connection to undisclosed income. The lower authorities&#039; orders were reversed, ruling in favor of the assessee in both cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2022 21:01:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=675538" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (5) TMI 715 - ITAT DEHRADUN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301559</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the appeals of the assessee in two cases involving additions of Rs. 20 lakhs and Rs. 30 lakhs made under sections 132 and 132(4) of the Income Tax Act. The additions were based on statements made during searches that were later retracted. The ITAT found the surrenders were made under pressure and lacked evidence, directing the AO to delete the additions due to insufficient connection to undisclosed income. The lower authorities&#039; orders were reversed, ruling in favor of the assessee in both cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301559</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>