<?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 (3) TMI 1112 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177064</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the additions made under section 68 of the IT Act for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided sufficient evidence to support the genuineness of the share application money transactions, while the Revenue failed to rebut this evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the tax effect in both cases fell below the appeal threshold set by CBDT Instruction No.5/2014, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:13:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=411624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 1112 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177064</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the additions made under section 68 of the IT Act for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided sufficient evidence to support the genuineness of the share application money transactions, while the Revenue failed to rebut this evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the tax effect in both cases fell below the appeal threshold set by CBDT Instruction No.5/2014, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>