<?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>2005 (5) TMI 553 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117551</link>
    <description>Immunity under the Remittances in Foreign Exchange (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991 was considered in relation to a credit received from another person&#039;s NRE account, with the dispute also turning on whether additions under sections 68 and 69 of the Income-tax Act could stand without first ascertaining the finality of the Bombay High Court&#039;s findings in the related matter. The Tribunal noted that the assessee&#039;s claim depended on the source of the remittance, the status of the High Court&#039;s observations, and the assessee&#039;s alternate explanation for the credit. The matter was restored for fresh consideration on these points.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154548" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 553 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117551</link>
      <description>Immunity under the Remittances in Foreign Exchange (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991 was considered in relation to a credit received from another person&#039;s NRE account, with the dispute also turning on whether additions under sections 68 and 69 of the Income-tax Act could stand without first ascertaining the finality of the Bombay High Court&#039;s findings in the related matter. The Tribunal noted that the assessee&#039;s claim depended on the source of the remittance, the status of the High Court&#039;s observations, and the assessee&#039;s alternate explanation for the credit. The matter was restored for fresh consideration on these points.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117551</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>