<?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 (11) TMI 436 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334418</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision. The long-term capital gain declared by the assessee was accepted, addition related to alleged commission expenses was deleted, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was cancelled. The Tribunal found the evidence provided by the assessee sufficient to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and the AO failed to substantiate the claim of bogus transactions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2017 10:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447553" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 436 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334418</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision. The long-term capital gain declared by the assessee was accepted, addition related to alleged commission expenses was deleted, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was cancelled. The Tribunal found the evidence provided by the assessee sufficient to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and the AO failed to substantiate the claim of bogus transactions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334418</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>