<?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>2011 (3) TMI 1650 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180960</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order on both issues. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of evidence for the cash component of brokerage income and recognized the proper accounting of the proforma bill in the subsequent year.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2016 11:36:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422603" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 1650 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180960</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order on both issues. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of evidence for the cash component of brokerage income and recognized the proper accounting of the proforma bill in the subsequent year.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180960</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>