<?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 (4) TMI 1510 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307104</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the tax appeal challenging additions made under sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to delete the additions, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence to prove allegations of sham transactions and commission payments. The Court concurred with the Tribunal&#039;s findings that the Assessing Officer&#039;s additions lacked sufficient evidentiary support and were not based on solid legal grounds, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Mar 2023 21:47:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=707944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 1510 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307104</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the tax appeal challenging additions made under sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to delete the additions, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence to prove allegations of sham transactions and commission payments. The Court concurred with the Tribunal&#039;s findings that the Assessing Officer&#039;s additions lacked sufficient evidentiary support and were not based on solid legal grounds, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307104</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>