<?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>2010 (10) TMI 1064 - ITAT BANGLORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178324</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal by Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee for statistical purposes. It directed remittance to the Assessing Officer for a thorough examination of the Peenya property purchase claim. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantiating claims with supporting documents for fair assessment, noting discrepancies between the parties&#039; arguments and the need for proper documentation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 May 2023 15:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415113" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 1064 - ITAT BANGLORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178324</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal by Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee for statistical purposes. It directed remittance to the Assessing Officer for a thorough examination of the Peenya property purchase claim. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantiating claims with supporting documents for fair assessment, noting discrepancies between the parties&#039; arguments and the need for proper documentation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>