<?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>2023 (2) TMI 1006 - ITAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434491</link>
    <description>In search-related assessments, notice under section 143(2) was treated as not being a mandatory jurisdictional precondition for proceedings under sections 153A and 153C, and the recorded satisfaction noted in the assessment order was not displaced by the absence of an order-sheet entry. An addition based on a seized third-party ledger entry was not sustained on the existing material because the document was unsigned, did not show the payment mode, and the assessee was denied examination and cross-examination of the person from whose possession it was seized and other connected parties. The disputed cash addition was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=705721" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (2) TMI 1006 - ITAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434491</link>
      <description>In search-related assessments, notice under section 143(2) was treated as not being a mandatory jurisdictional precondition for proceedings under sections 153A and 153C, and the recorded satisfaction noted in the assessment order was not displaced by the absence of an order-sheet entry. An addition based on a seized third-party ledger entry was not sustained on the existing material because the document was unsigned, did not show the payment mode, and the assessee was denied examination and cross-examination of the person from whose possession it was seized and other connected parties. The disputed cash addition was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>