<?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>2011 (6) TMI 1030 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306300</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the addition of Rs. 25,00,000 made under section 69B of the IT Act for unexplained investment in the purchase of an office property. The Tribunal found that the authorities failed to establish the payment of &quot;on money&quot; by the assessee based on seized documents and comparable cases, concluding that the addition was made on suspicion and assumptions without sufficient evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2023 11:30:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=702339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 1030 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306300</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the addition of Rs. 25,00,000 made under section 69B of the IT Act for unexplained investment in the purchase of an office property. The Tribunal found that the authorities failed to establish the payment of &quot;on money&quot; by the assessee based on seized documents and comparable cases, concluding that the addition was made on suspicion and assumptions without sufficient evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306300</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>