<?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 (7) TMI 1252 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363944</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and remitting the case back to the AO for proper consideration. The Tribunal found that the General Power of Attorney (GPA) did not explicitly mention the receipt of sale consideration, leading to the dismissal of the assessee&#039;s cross objection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2018 05:47:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=527670" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1252 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363944</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and remitting the case back to the AO for proper consideration. The Tribunal found that the General Power of Attorney (GPA) did not explicitly mention the receipt of sale consideration, leading to the dismissal of the assessee&#039;s cross objection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363944</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>