<?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 (9) TMI 781 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367045</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and allowed the assessee&#039;s cross-objection. It held that the interest expenditure was not incurred during A.Y. 2008-09, and therefore, there was no basis for disallowing it. Additionally, the Tribunal found the reopening of the assessment invalid as the interest expenditure was not debited in the relevant assessment year. It clarified that directing the addition in an earlier assessment year falls within the revisionary powers of the CIT under section 263 of the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:48:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=534337" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 781 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367045</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and allowed the assessee&#039;s cross-objection. It held that the interest expenditure was not incurred during A.Y. 2008-09, and therefore, there was no basis for disallowing it. Additionally, the Tribunal found the reopening of the assessment invalid as the interest expenditure was not debited in the relevant assessment year. It clarified that directing the addition in an earlier assessment year falls within the revisionary powers of the CIT under section 263 of the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367045</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>