<?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 491 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335846</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for the assessment year 2009-10. The additions to total income, expenses, excess rent paid, and treatment of sundry deposits were confirmed due to lack of evidence and explanations provided by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the decisions made by the authorities, emphasizing the failure of the assessee to discharge the burden of proof on various disputed issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Dec 2016 23:49:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 491 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335846</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for the assessment year 2009-10. The additions to total income, expenses, excess rent paid, and treatment of sundry deposits were confirmed due to lack of evidence and explanations provided by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the decisions made by the authorities, emphasizing the failure of the assessee to discharge the burden of proof on various disputed issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335846</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>