<?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>2016 (1) TMI 35 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270243</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the additional disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Income Tax Act was unjustified as the assessee had voluntarily made a higher disallowance. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of &amp;amp;8377; 18,45,336, emphasizing that the disallowance had to be computed as per rule 8D. The appeal was partly allowed, with other grounds raised by the assessee deemed as not pressed and dismissed. The order was pronounced on 30.9.2015.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2016 10:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=411427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 35 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270243</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the additional disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Income Tax Act was unjustified as the assessee had voluntarily made a higher disallowance. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of &amp;amp;8377; 18,45,336, emphasizing that the disallowance had to be computed as per rule 8D. The appeal was partly allowed, with other grounds raised by the assessee deemed as not pressed and dismissed. The order was pronounced on 30.9.2015.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270243</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>