<?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 (8) TMI 35 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441056</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the addition related to agricultural income from the sale of poplar trees due to valid evidence submitted but not considered by the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal sustained Rs. 75,000/- as income from undisclosed sources, granting the benefit of Rs. 2.5 lakhs cash deposits in accordance with Instruction No.3/2017 for the assessee but not extending it to the assessee&#039;s wife, who was not a taxpayer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2023 09:02:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=721178" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 35 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441056</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the addition related to agricultural income from the sale of poplar trees due to valid evidence submitted but not considered by the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal sustained Rs. 75,000/- as income from undisclosed sources, granting the benefit of Rs. 2.5 lakhs cash deposits in accordance with Instruction No.3/2017 for the assessee but not extending it to the assessee&#039;s wife, who was not a taxpayer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441056</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>