<?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 (7) TMI 21 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424466</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the lower authorities concerning unexplained credits and commission payments. The assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to counter the findings related to share capital and alleged commission, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of meeting the requirements under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in proving the identity of investors, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2022 09:33:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=683630" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 21 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424466</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the lower authorities concerning unexplained credits and commission payments. The assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to counter the findings related to share capital and alleged commission, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of meeting the requirements under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in proving the identity of investors, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>