<?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 594 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333574</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)&#039;s decisions on both issues. The relief granted under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was maintained as the investments were made in earlier years. Additionally, the compensation received for the cancellation of a development agreement was treated as reimbursement of expenses, not as a capital gain. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the lower authorities&#039; findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445105" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 594 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333574</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)&#039;s decisions on both issues. The relief granted under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was maintained as the investments were made in earlier years. Additionally, the compensation received for the cancellation of a development agreement was treated as reimbursement of expenses, not as a capital gain. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the lower authorities&#039; findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333574</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>