<?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>2022 (10) TMI 1325 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470918</link>
    <description>Consistency in materially identical factual matters requires following earlier determinations where no changed circumstances are shown. Accordingly, recurring additions concerning capital, cash credits, interest, depreciation, telephone expenses, business income and valuation-based construction investments were deleted or confined to the extent previously determined in the assessee&#039;s favour. Unsigned seized receipts retained by the assessee, coupled with the alleged payer&#039;s denial and lack of corroboration, did not establish undisclosed receipts from the proprietary concern; related additions remained deleted. Conversely, seized notations identifying servant advances by recipient, amount and date supported an addition where the assessee failed to link the payments to available cash or withdrawals or establish their source under Section 69C. The servant-advance addition, including the separate enhanced advance, remained taxable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2026 07:13:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=916999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 1325 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470918</link>
      <description>Consistency in materially identical factual matters requires following earlier determinations where no changed circumstances are shown. Accordingly, recurring additions concerning capital, cash credits, interest, depreciation, telephone expenses, business income and valuation-based construction investments were deleted or confined to the extent previously determined in the assessee&#039;s favour. Unsigned seized receipts retained by the assessee, coupled with the alleged payer&#039;s denial and lack of corroboration, did not establish undisclosed receipts from the proprietary concern; related additions remained deleted. Conversely, seized notations identifying servant advances by recipient, amount and date supported an addition where the assessee failed to link the payments to available cash or withdrawals or establish their source under Section 69C. The servant-advance addition, including the separate enhanced advance, remained taxable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>