<?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 1067 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442088</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, ruling that the additions under Sections 41(1) and 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act were unsustainable. The Tribunal found that the liabilities in question did not cease to be debts even if barred by limitation, as per judicial precedents. Additionally, it determined that Section 28(iv) did not apply to the advances received in the form of money. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2023 12:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=723514" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 1067 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442088</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, ruling that the additions under Sections 41(1) and 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act were unsustainable. The Tribunal found that the liabilities in question did not cease to be debts even if barred by limitation, as per judicial precedents. Additionally, it determined that Section 28(iv) did not apply to the advances received in the form of money. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>