<?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 (3) TMI 1477 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340974</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. It found that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid as there was a mistaken identity regarding a loan taken by a firm, not the appellant personally. Consequently, the additions of undisclosed income and interest charges were also set aside due to the lack of a valid basis for reopening the assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:02:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463464" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1477 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340974</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. It found that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid as there was a mistaken identity regarding a loan taken by a firm, not the appellant personally. Consequently, the additions of undisclosed income and interest charges were also set aside due to the lack of a valid basis for reopening the assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340974</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>