<?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 (8) TMI 366 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346308</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, ruling that the intermediary transaction through the unregistered MOU was valid. The short-term capital gains were correctly computed, considering the entire sale consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no revenue loss, as the sale consideration had been appropriately taxed. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484958" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 366 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346308</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, ruling that the intermediary transaction through the unregistered MOU was valid. The short-term capital gains were correctly computed, considering the entire sale consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no revenue loss, as the sale consideration had been appropriately taxed. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346308</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>