<?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>2004 (8) TMI 618 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116598</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the assessee&#039;s &#039;Completed Project&#039; method of accounting, affirming its consistency and acceptance. It supported the deletion of additions related to unproved loans and interest, as the assessee provided sufficient evidence. However, the Tribunal reversed the deletion of additions for inflated purchases, restoring the AO&#039;s addition due to insufficient substantiation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2024 18:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 618 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116598</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the assessee&#039;s &#039;Completed Project&#039; method of accounting, affirming its consistency and acceptance. It supported the deletion of additions related to unproved loans and interest, as the assessee provided sufficient evidence. However, the Tribunal reversed the deletion of additions for inflated purchases, restoring the AO&#039;s addition due to insufficient substantiation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>