<?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 1133 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347075</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, stating that the firm was not required to prove the source of the source of capital introduced by the partners. The Tribunal directed the matter to be verified by the CIT(A) to confirm if the capital contribution was from the partners&#039; bank accounts. If verified, the addition would be deleted; otherwise, the CIT(A) would decide accordingly. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the order pronounced on 23rd August 2017.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487113" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1133 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347075</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, stating that the firm was not required to prove the source of the source of capital introduced by the partners. The Tribunal directed the matter to be verified by the CIT(A) to confirm if the capital contribution was from the partners&#039; bank accounts. If verified, the addition would be deleted; otherwise, the CIT(A) would decide accordingly. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the order pronounced on 23rd August 2017.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347075</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>