<?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>2025 (3) TMI 1926 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469972</link>
    <description>In reassessment proceedings, where the assessment order accepted the assessee&#039;s explanation for cash deposits and made no addition on the reopened issue, tax computation had to conform to the income actually assessed. The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not adopt an income figure different from the assessed income in the absence of a corresponding addition. The first appellate authority&#039;s order was therefore affirmed, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 22:36:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911110" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1926 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469972</link>
      <description>In reassessment proceedings, where the assessment order accepted the assessee&#039;s explanation for cash deposits and made no addition on the reopened issue, tax computation had to conform to the income actually assessed. The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not adopt an income figure different from the assessed income in the absence of a corresponding addition. The first appellate authority&#039;s order was therefore affirmed, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469972</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>