<?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>2018 (2) TMI 179 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354758</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, primarily on the ground that the order under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was barred by limitation. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the A.O&#039;s order was quashed. The Tribunal did not find it necessary to address the applicability of Section 194C and the levy of interest under Section 201(1A) separately, given the decision on the limitation issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Feb 2018 08:34:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=507470" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 179 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354758</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, primarily on the ground that the order under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was barred by limitation. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the A.O&#039;s order was quashed. The Tribunal did not find it necessary to address the applicability of Section 194C and the levy of interest under Section 201(1A) separately, given the decision on the limitation issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354758</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>