<?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>2015 (10) TMI 2026 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266752</link>
    <description>The appeal was partly allowed, with the deletion of the addition under &quot;Income from House Property&quot; and partial relief on the disallowance of bank interest and charges. The Tribunal held that the addition of notional interest on an interest-free deposit was contrary to law and facts, directing its deletion. The incorrect amount of security deposit considered became infructuous due to the deletion of the addition under the head &quot;Income from House Property.&quot;</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:10:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402921" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2026 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266752</link>
      <description>The appeal was partly allowed, with the deletion of the addition under &quot;Income from House Property&quot; and partial relief on the disallowance of bank interest and charges. The Tribunal held that the addition of notional interest on an interest-free deposit was contrary to law and facts, directing its deletion. The incorrect amount of security deposit considered became infructuous due to the deletion of the addition under the head &quot;Income from House Property.&quot;</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266752</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>