<?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 (10) TMI 1195 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444972</link>
    <description>The ITAT Chennai quashed an assessment under section 153A where the AO alleged unaccounted cash payments for asset acquisition based on a loose sheet found during search at the assessee&#039;s supplier&#039;s premises. The tribunal held that the loose sheet regarding over-pricing of bottles could not be considered evidence of &quot;assets&quot; as defined in section 153A&#039;s Explanation 2, which specifically covers land, buildings, shares, securities, loans, advances, and bank deposits. The AO failed to provide corroborating evidence of unaccounted cash payments or unexplained assets/investments. Following the Viraj Profiles Limited precedent, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision that the section 153A notice lacked jurisdiction, ruling in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2023 17:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=730349" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 1195 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444972</link>
      <description>The ITAT Chennai quashed an assessment under section 153A where the AO alleged unaccounted cash payments for asset acquisition based on a loose sheet found during search at the assessee&#039;s supplier&#039;s premises. The tribunal held that the loose sheet regarding over-pricing of bottles could not be considered evidence of &quot;assets&quot; as defined in section 153A&#039;s Explanation 2, which specifically covers land, buildings, shares, securities, loans, advances, and bank deposits. The AO failed to provide corroborating evidence of unaccounted cash payments or unexplained assets/investments. Following the Viraj Profiles Limited precedent, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision that the section 153A notice lacked jurisdiction, ruling in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444972</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>