<?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 1269 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425714</link>
    <description>The Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, must record its own reasons when sustaining deletion of additions under section 68; merely reproducing the first appellate findings and noting that the departmental representative could not controvert them is insufficient. An order without independent reasoning is unsustainable, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits after hearing both sides.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2022 09:16:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=686467" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 1269 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425714</link>
      <description>The Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, must record its own reasons when sustaining deletion of additions under section 68; merely reproducing the first appellate findings and noting that the departmental representative could not controvert them is insufficient. An order without independent reasoning is unsustainable, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits after hearing both sides.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425714</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>