<?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>2016 (4) TMI 1438 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306021</link>
    <description>The tribunal quashed the assessment due to the invalidity of the reopening, citing lack of proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer and absence of required approval. The tribunal also directed deletion of the Rs. 5 lakhs addition to the assessee&#039;s income, as the authorities failed to properly evaluate the evidence provided, shifting the burden of proof to the Assessing Officer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2023 09:31:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=700805" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 1438 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306021</link>
      <description>The tribunal quashed the assessment due to the invalidity of the reopening, citing lack of proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer and absence of required approval. The tribunal also directed deletion of the Rs. 5 lakhs addition to the assessee&#039;s income, as the authorities failed to properly evaluate the evidence provided, shifting the burden of proof to the Assessing Officer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306021</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>