<?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>2017 (2) TMI 113 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338413</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the addition made by the AO under section 69B of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to support additions under section 69B and concluded that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) did not apply in this case. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal precedents and relevant provisions in tax assessments, ultimately affirming the decision in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2022 15:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457412" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 113 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338413</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the addition made by the AO under section 69B of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to support additions under section 69B and concluded that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) did not apply in this case. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal precedents and relevant provisions in tax assessments, ultimately affirming the decision in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>