<?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 (7) TMI 311 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235153</link>
    <description>Proportionate interest expenditure was questioned for inclusion in closing stock valuation, but the record did not clearly establish the detention period of the ship, the conduct of business during that time, or the link between the interest and stock valuation, so the issue was remitted for fresh examination. Unexplained cash credits were also challenged, and the Tribunal noted uncertainty in the basis of the section 68 addition, including prior acceptance of loans from the same parties and difficulties in obtaining confirmations, so this issue too was sent back for detailed verification. The impugned order was therefore set aside on both points and the matter restored for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jul 2013 10:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 311 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235153</link>
      <description>Proportionate interest expenditure was questioned for inclusion in closing stock valuation, but the record did not clearly establish the detention period of the ship, the conduct of business during that time, or the link between the interest and stock valuation, so the issue was remitted for fresh examination. Unexplained cash credits were also challenged, and the Tribunal noted uncertainty in the basis of the section 68 addition, including prior acceptance of loans from the same parties and difficulties in obtaining confirmations, so this issue too was sent back for detailed verification. The impugned order was therefore set aside on both points and the matter restored for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>