<?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>2011 (5) TMI 553 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210016</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower authorities&#039; decisions to treat interest income as &quot;Income from other sources,&quot; validate the reopening proceedings under section 147, and assess rental income under the head &quot;Other Sources.&quot; The Tribunal held that the interest received on bank FDRs was correctly categorized, the reopening was valid based on information by the Assessing Officer, and the rental income did not align with the business activities stated in the partnership deed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 10:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 553 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210016</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower authorities&#039; decisions to treat interest income as &quot;Income from other sources,&quot; validate the reopening proceedings under section 147, and assess rental income under the head &quot;Other Sources.&quot; The Tribunal held that the interest received on bank FDRs was correctly categorized, the reopening was valid based on information by the Assessing Officer, and the rental income did not align with the business activities stated in the partnership deed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210016</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>