<?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>2012 (7) TMI 271 - ITAT, Mumbai</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214696</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions in most cases, allowing partial relief to the assessees and dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeals. It emphasized the importance of proper documentation and the correct application of legal provisions in addressing issues such as ad hoc disallowance of expenses, disallowance of cash expenses, reference to the Valuation Officer, and disallowance under Section 69C.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 271 - ITAT, Mumbai</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214696</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions in most cases, allowing partial relief to the assessees and dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeals. It emphasized the importance of proper documentation and the correct application of legal provisions in addressing issues such as ad hoc disallowance of expenses, disallowance of cash expenses, reference to the Valuation Officer, and disallowance under Section 69C.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214696</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>