<?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>2010 (11) TMI 108 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202880</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, upholding the invocation of section 263 by the Commissioner and directing the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment on identified aspects in accordance with the law. The decision in one appeal applied mutatis-mutandis to the other appeal due to identical facts and circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2011 08:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 108 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202880</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, upholding the invocation of section 263 by the Commissioner and directing the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment on identified aspects in accordance with the law. The decision in one appeal applied mutatis-mutandis to the other appeal due to identical facts and circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202880</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>