<?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 760 - ITAT SURAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441781</link>
    <description>The appeal related to the quantum assessment was partly allowed, with the Tribunal finding in favor of the assessee on several disputed additions. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making certain additions to the income. Additionally, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as a substantial part of the addition was deleted. The Tribunal confirmed the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer over the case despite the assessee being a Non-Resident.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2023 07:47:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=722816" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 760 - ITAT SURAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441781</link>
      <description>The appeal related to the quantum assessment was partly allowed, with the Tribunal finding in favor of the assessee on several disputed additions. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making certain additions to the income. Additionally, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as a substantial part of the addition was deleted. The Tribunal confirmed the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer over the case despite the assessee being a Non-Resident.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>