<?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>2011 (7) TMI 1314 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197311</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to reevaluate the perquisite value by considering only the balance amount not covered by fringe benefit tax paid by the employer. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remanded the matter for recomputation, emphasizing the treatment of expenses covered by fringe benefit tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2018 16:45:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=502302" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 1314 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197311</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to reevaluate the perquisite value by considering only the balance amount not covered by fringe benefit tax paid by the employer. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remanded the matter for recomputation, emphasizing the treatment of expenses covered by fringe benefit tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197311</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>