<?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 (3) TMI 777 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435391</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found the notice issued under Section 153C to be invalid as it did not meet legal requirements. The assessment made by the AO was deemed invalid due to lack of specific incriminating evidence. The estimation of income based on unaccounted sales was rejected for lack of evidence. Seized documents were considered to have no evidentiary value. The AO&#039;s addition of undisclosed income was unsupported by credible evidence. The CIT(A)&#039;s profit estimation was deemed erroneous. The revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed for not meeting the prescribed tax effect threshold. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the deletion of additions in the assessee&#039;s hands.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:30:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=708013" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (3) TMI 777 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435391</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found the notice issued under Section 153C to be invalid as it did not meet legal requirements. The assessment made by the AO was deemed invalid due to lack of specific incriminating evidence. The estimation of income based on unaccounted sales was rejected for lack of evidence. Seized documents were considered to have no evidentiary value. The AO&#039;s addition of undisclosed income was unsupported by credible evidence. The CIT(A)&#039;s profit estimation was deemed erroneous. The revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed for not meeting the prescribed tax effect threshold. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the deletion of additions in the assessee&#039;s hands.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>