<?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 (11) TMI 44 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369701</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, ruling that the cash payments to tenants were made by the construction company, not the individual assessee. The Tribunal considered project details and ownership of transactions, leading to the deletion of the addition. The decision favored the assessee, emphasizing the distinction between the company and the individual in making the payments, pronounced on 29-10-2018.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2018 13:55:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 44 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369701</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, ruling that the cash payments to tenants were made by the construction company, not the individual assessee. The Tribunal considered project details and ownership of transactions, leading to the deletion of the addition. The decision favored the assessee, emphasizing the distinction between the company and the individual in making the payments, pronounced on 29-10-2018.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369701</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>