<?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 (10) TMI 411 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333391</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in both issues, ruling against the Assessing Officer in the disallowance under section 14A and the claim of additional depreciation on plant and machinery. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of legal precedent, consistency, and the absence of new evidence in reaching its decisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:13:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444472" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 411 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333391</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in both issues, ruling against the Assessing Officer in the disallowance under section 14A and the claim of additional depreciation on plant and machinery. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of legal precedent, consistency, and the absence of new evidence in reaching its decisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>