<?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>2014 (6) TMI 612 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248708</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, treating income from the house property as property income and charges for office equipments as business income based on consistency with previous assessment outcomes. The Court emphasized that the rule of consistency should apply to identical facts and previous assessments, dismissing the appeal for not raising substantial legal questions. The judgment supported the Tribunal&#039;s decision, highlighting the importance of consistent treatment in such matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 612 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248708</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, treating income from the house property as property income and charges for office equipments as business income based on consistency with previous assessment outcomes. The Court emphasized that the rule of consistency should apply to identical facts and previous assessments, dismissing the appeal for not raising substantial legal questions. The judgment supported the Tribunal&#039;s decision, highlighting the importance of consistent treatment in such matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248708</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>