<?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 (5) TMI 575 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205025</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, ruling that the entire income from the transaction should be taxed as business income in the current year. It upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision on consultancy charges. The Tribunal found the assessee&#039;s partnership transactions to be a ploy to defer tax liability and agreed with the AO&#039;s valuation of the property.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 17:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178550" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 575 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205025</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, ruling that the entire income from the transaction should be taxed as business income in the current year. It upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision on consultancy charges. The Tribunal found the assessee&#039;s partnership transactions to be a ploy to defer tax liability and agreed with the AO&#039;s valuation of the property.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>