<?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 796 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271004</link>
    <description>The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal and the assessee&#039;s cross objection, affirming the deletion of the addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The loans from close relatives were adequately explained with supporting evidence, leading to the removal of the addition. Additionally, the ad-hoc disallowances on various expenses were upheld as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of their business nature, resulting in no interference with the CIT(A)&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2016 10:30:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 796 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271004</link>
      <description>The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal and the assessee&#039;s cross objection, affirming the deletion of the addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The loans from close relatives were adequately explained with supporting evidence, leading to the removal of the addition. Additionally, the ad-hoc disallowances on various expenses were upheld as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of their business nature, resulting in no interference with the CIT(A)&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271004</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>