<?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>2013 (10) TMI 1489 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199892</link>
    <description>A Commissioner (Appeals) cannot rely on additional evidence first produced in appellate proceedings unless the Assessing Officer is given a reasonable opportunity to examine and rebut it under Rule 46A(3). Material concerning an indigent patients fund and reservation of beds had not been before the Assessing Officer, so its use without such opportunity was not sustainable. The matter therefore required fresh consideration after affording the Assessing Officer a fair chance to respond.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:18:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512656" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1489 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199892</link>
      <description>A Commissioner (Appeals) cannot rely on additional evidence first produced in appellate proceedings unless the Assessing Officer is given a reasonable opportunity to examine and rebut it under Rule 46A(3). Material concerning an indigent patients fund and reservation of beds had not been before the Assessing Officer, so its use without such opportunity was not sustainable. The matter therefore required fresh consideration after affording the Assessing Officer a fair chance to respond.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199892</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>