<?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 1366 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200655</link>
    <description>The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 31,92,484 on account of bogus purchases for the assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was deemed not maintainable as the tax effect, calculated excluding surcharge and education cess, fell below the Rs. 10 lakh threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The tribunal emphasized that only the tax amount should be considered for determining appeal validity under the circular, leading to the decision in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:32:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1366 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200655</link>
      <description>The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 31,92,484 on account of bogus purchases for the assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was deemed not maintainable as the tax effect, calculated excluding surcharge and education cess, fell below the Rs. 10 lakh threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The tribunal emphasized that only the tax amount should be considered for determining appeal validity under the circular, leading to the decision in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200655</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>