<?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>2013 (6) TMI 329 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234504</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A) decision to delete the addition for jewellery received on approval basis. It found the transactions were genuine consignment activities, duly recorded, and lacked incriminating evidence. The Tribunal deemed the AO&#039;s addition of labour charges as speculative without supporting evidence, confirming the reasonableness of the CIT (A) decision and dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196914" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 329 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234504</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A) decision to delete the addition for jewellery received on approval basis. It found the transactions were genuine consignment activities, duly recorded, and lacked incriminating evidence. The Tribunal deemed the AO&#039;s addition of labour charges as speculative without supporting evidence, confirming the reasonableness of the CIT (A) decision and dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234504</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>