<?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>2017 (11) TMI 1854 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283817</link>
    <description>The appeals were allowed as the Tribunal held that investments in securities by the banking entity were part of its business activities, and income from such investments was business income, not subject to disallowance under rule 8D. The Tribunal cited a decision by the Punjab &amp;amp; Haryana High Court and a CBDT circular to support its ruling. Consequently, the disallowance under section 14A was deleted for the assessment years in question.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=590701" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1854 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283817</link>
      <description>The appeals were allowed as the Tribunal held that investments in securities by the banking entity were part of its business activities, and income from such investments was business income, not subject to disallowance under rule 8D. The Tribunal cited a decision by the Punjab &amp;amp; Haryana High Court and a CBDT circular to support its ruling. Consequently, the disallowance under section 14A was deleted for the assessment years in question.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>