<?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 (5) TMI 40 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359476</link>
    <description>The ITAT partly allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The judgment highlighted the necessity of considering only dividend yielding investments for disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii). Additionally, it upheld the assessment of interest income received by the assessee as business income, citing consistency in assessments and legal principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 May 2018 06:24:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518575" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 40 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359476</link>
      <description>The ITAT partly allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The judgment highlighted the necessity of considering only dividend yielding investments for disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii). Additionally, it upheld the assessment of interest income received by the assessee as business income, citing consistency in assessments and legal principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>