<?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 1401 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423141</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, dismissing the technical challenge raised by the assessee. It confirmed the addition of Rs. 57,00,000 under Section 69 for the purchase of agricultural land, rejecting the additional evidence provided by the assessee regarding the source of funds. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, criticizing the Revenue for not verifying the details adequately and emphasizing the importance of thorough verification before rejecting documentary evidence. The issue of delay in receiving the CIT(A) order was not explicitly addressed in the judgment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 May 2022 09:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=680641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 1401 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423141</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, dismissing the technical challenge raised by the assessee. It confirmed the addition of Rs. 57,00,000 under Section 69 for the purchase of agricultural land, rejecting the additional evidence provided by the assessee regarding the source of funds. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, criticizing the Revenue for not verifying the details adequately and emphasizing the importance of thorough verification before rejecting documentary evidence. The issue of delay in receiving the CIT(A) order was not explicitly addressed in the judgment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423141</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>