<?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 (4) TMI 117 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326003</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the AO to re-examine issues related to deemed let out properties, restriction of interest claim, and unexplained cash deposits. The addition of Rs. 22,57,000 for professional income was deleted, and the AO was instructed to compute capital gains on properties held by the assessee&#039;s family members.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422398" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 117 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326003</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the AO to re-examine issues related to deemed let out properties, restriction of interest claim, and unexplained cash deposits. The addition of Rs. 22,57,000 for professional income was deleted, and the AO was instructed to compute capital gains on properties held by the assessee&#039;s family members.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>