<?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>2013 (8) TMI 1019 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187571</link>
    <description>The appeals were dismissed, and the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) were upheld, confirming the addition of interest on a notional basis for the assessment years in question. The court found that the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim that interest income was not received due to disputes with loan parties. The court also determined that the legal precedents cited were not applicable to the case. Consequently, the additions made by the AO based on the mercantile system of accounting were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446094" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 1019 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187571</link>
      <description>The appeals were dismissed, and the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) were upheld, confirming the addition of interest on a notional basis for the assessment years in question. The court found that the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim that interest income was not received due to disputes with loan parties. The court also determined that the legal precedents cited were not applicable to the case. Consequently, the additions made by the AO based on the mercantile system of accounting were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>