<?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>2004 (11) TMI 578 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177882</link>
    <description>The appeal was decided in favor of the assessee. The majority opinion held that the assessment under section 158BC was unjustified, as it relied on materials already disclosed or obtained outside the search under section 132. The inclusion of the depreciation allowance in the undisclosed income was deemed unwarranted, as the evidence did not support such inclusion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2024 19:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=413806" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 578 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177882</link>
      <description>The appeal was decided in favor of the assessee. The majority opinion held that the assessment under section 158BC was unjustified, as it relied on materials already disclosed or obtained outside the search under section 132. The inclusion of the depreciation allowance in the undisclosed income was deemed unwarranted, as the evidence did not support such inclusion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>