<?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 (5) TMI 511 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422251</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the Rs.36,25,000/- addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT found that the assessee adequately explained the cash deposits through verified vouchers, criticizing the lack of further investigation by the Assessing Officer. The burden of proof was considered discharged by the assessee, leading to the deletion of the addition and a direction to recompute the income accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 May 2022 08:44:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=678850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 511 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422251</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the Rs.36,25,000/- addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT found that the assessee adequately explained the cash deposits through verified vouchers, criticizing the lack of further investigation by the Assessing Officer. The burden of proof was considered discharged by the assessee, leading to the deletion of the addition and a direction to recompute the income accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422251</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>