<?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>2011 (8) TMI 1395 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468439</link>
    <description>Bank deposits and credit entries were examined under section 68 on the basis of the assessee&#039;s explanations and supporting material. The sources claimed included salary savings, loan receipts, fixed deposit maturity proceeds, redeposits of earlier withdrawals, and funds received through a brother; the appellate record also noted that the assessee&#039;s wife was an earning member. The Tribunal found that the material on record justified further relief, accepted the additional explanation and evidence for part of the deposits, and held that remand to the Assessing Officer was unnecessary. The sustained addition was therefore reduced, with only a balance amount kept as unexplained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 15:05:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900245" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1395 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468439</link>
      <description>Bank deposits and credit entries were examined under section 68 on the basis of the assessee&#039;s explanations and supporting material. The sources claimed included salary savings, loan receipts, fixed deposit maturity proceeds, redeposits of earlier withdrawals, and funds received through a brother; the appellate record also noted that the assessee&#039;s wife was an earning member. The Tribunal found that the material on record justified further relief, accepted the additional explanation and evidence for part of the deposits, and held that remand to the Assessing Officer was unnecessary. The sustained addition was therefore reduced, with only a balance amount kept as unexplained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>