<?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>2000 (7) TMI 229 - ITAT JODHPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68371</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee on both issues. Partners&#039; salary was deemed admissible under section 40(b), following the partnership deed. The enhancement of income by the Dy. CIT(A) was overturned, as the ITAT found the adjustments unjustified based on previous court decisions and restored the AO&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:44:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=106767" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 229 - ITAT JODHPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68371</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee on both issues. Partners&#039; salary was deemed admissible under section 40(b), following the partnership deed. The enhancement of income by the Dy. CIT(A) was overturned, as the ITAT found the adjustments unjustified based on previous court decisions and restored the AO&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>