<?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 (12) TMI 132 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446448</link>
    <description>The ITAT Nagpur upheld the addition of commission income from undisclosed bank deposits. The assessee claimed receiving amounts via three cheques, retaining commission and paying the remainder to two sellers through banking channels. However, the AO and CIT(A) found the assessee&#039;s affidavit self-serving and unsupported by proof. Signatures on receipts didn&#039;t match sale deed signatures, and the assessee failed to produce the two persons for examination despite summons being issued. The CIT(A) correctly concluded that no satisfactory explanation was provided to support the claim that the added amount was paid to sellers rather than retained as commission income. The appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2023 07:36:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=733837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 132 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446448</link>
      <description>The ITAT Nagpur upheld the addition of commission income from undisclosed bank deposits. The assessee claimed receiving amounts via three cheques, retaining commission and paying the remainder to two sellers through banking channels. However, the AO and CIT(A) found the assessee&#039;s affidavit self-serving and unsupported by proof. Signatures on receipts didn&#039;t match sale deed signatures, and the assessee failed to produce the two persons for examination despite summons being issued. The CIT(A) correctly concluded that no satisfactory explanation was provided to support the claim that the added amount was paid to sellers rather than retained as commission income. The appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>