<?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 809 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326695</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the issues by admitting additional evidences and seeking a remand report from the AO if necessary. The Tribunal held that natural justice principles should prevail over Rule 46A, as the assessee was deprived of the opportunity to counter the AO&#039;s findings. The order was pronounced on 6.4.2016.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2016 19:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=424771" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 809 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326695</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the issues by admitting additional evidences and seeking a remand report from the AO if necessary. The Tribunal held that natural justice principles should prevail over Rule 46A, as the assessee was deprived of the opportunity to counter the AO&#039;s findings. The order was pronounced on 6.4.2016.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>