<?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 (12) TMI 173 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335528</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal against the addition of undisclosed income on the sale of a flat, emphasizing the avoidance of double taxation. The ITAT directed a fresh assessment, considering that the profit had already been declared by another individual to prevent double taxation and ensure a fair assessment process. The decision highlighted the importance of jurisdiction over tax assessment to uphold the principle against double taxation, as established by the Supreme Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2016 08:38:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450428" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 173 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335528</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal against the addition of undisclosed income on the sale of a flat, emphasizing the avoidance of double taxation. The ITAT directed a fresh assessment, considering that the profit had already been declared by another individual to prevent double taxation and ensure a fair assessment process. The decision highlighted the importance of jurisdiction over tax assessment to uphold the principle against double taxation, as established by the Supreme Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335528</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>