<?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>2019 (3) TMI 162 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376141</link>
    <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled in favor of the assessee in a case concerning the interpretation of section 69D of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT found that the instruments borrowed were bills of exchange, not hundies, based on legal precedents and arguments presented. The ITAT set aside the addition made under section 69D, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between hundies and bills of exchange in such cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2019 15:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=561059" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 162 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376141</link>
      <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled in favor of the assessee in a case concerning the interpretation of section 69D of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT found that the instruments borrowed were bills of exchange, not hundies, based on legal precedents and arguments presented. The ITAT set aside the addition made under section 69D, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between hundies and bills of exchange in such cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376141</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>