<?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>ITAT Upholds Reopening of Assessment u/s 147; Validates Addition u/s 68 for Unaccounted Income.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78641</link>
    <description>The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the validity of reopening assessment u/s 147 and addition u/s 68. The AO had sufficient material to believe the assessee introduced unaccounted income as bogus share capital, leading to income escapement. The notice u/s 147 was upheld as valid. The assessee failed to prove creditworthiness of share applicant or transaction genuineness. AO&#039;s addition u/s 68 was deemed justified, concluding the assessee channeled its own funds through investor companies. The assessee engaged in dubious activities, introducing unaccounted money through questionable transactions. The CIT(A)&#039;s order was upheld, ruling against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:03:34 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:03:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>ITAT Upholds Reopening of Assessment u/s 147; Validates Addition u/s 68 for Unaccounted Income.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78641</link>
      <description>The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the validity of reopening assessment u/s 147 and addition u/s 68. The AO had sufficient material to believe the assessee introduced unaccounted income as bogus share capital, leading to income escapement. The notice u/s 147 was upheld as valid. The assessee failed to prove creditworthiness of share applicant or transaction genuineness. AO&#039;s addition u/s 68 was deemed justified, concluding the assessee channeled its own funds through investor companies. The assessee engaged in dubious activities, introducing unaccounted money through questionable transactions. The CIT(A)&#039;s order was upheld, ruling against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:03:34 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>