<?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 (11) TMI 177 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350298</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 44,78,415/- for alleged bogus purchases under Section 69C and the alleged violation of Section 40A(3). The issue of disallowance of interest paid to partners under Section 40(ba) was remanded to the AO for further verification. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2017 10:52:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 177 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350298</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 44,78,415/- for alleged bogus purchases under Section 69C and the alleged violation of Section 40A(3). The issue of disallowance of interest paid to partners under Section 40(ba) was remanded to the AO for further verification. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>