<?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 (9) TMI 416 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202912</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the revenue&#039;s appeal by upholding the disallowance of the loss of Rs. 30,74,808 under Section 94(7) of the IT Act, 1961, but rejecting the disallowance of the balance loss of Rs. 3,70,393. The Tribunal emphasized the exclusion of the record date when counting the three-month period, leading to the decision that the loss fell within the specified timeframe. The appeal resulted in a partial allowance with the order pronounced on 30.9.2010.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176484" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 416 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202912</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the revenue&#039;s appeal by upholding the disallowance of the loss of Rs. 30,74,808 under Section 94(7) of the IT Act, 1961, but rejecting the disallowance of the balance loss of Rs. 3,70,393. The Tribunal emphasized the exclusion of the record date when counting the three-month period, leading to the decision that the loss fell within the specified timeframe. The appeal resulted in a partial allowance with the order pronounced on 30.9.2010.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202912</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>