<?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 1095 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422835</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal and confirming the deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,80,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found no violation of Rule 46A, agreeing that the assessee had adequately proven the legitimacy of the transactions, leading to the unjustified nature of the addition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 May 2022 17:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=679990" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 1095 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422835</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal and confirming the deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,80,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found no violation of Rule 46A, agreeing that the assessee had adequately proven the legitimacy of the transactions, leading to the unjustified nature of the addition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422835</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>