<?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>2016 (6) TMI 1381 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285208</link>
    <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, finding the reopening of assessment legally flawed as there was no failure to disclose material facts. It also held that section 115JB does not apply to banking companies and that interest under section 234D was not applicable in this case. Consequently, the assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed based on these grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2020 16:17:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=599103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 1381 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285208</link>
      <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, finding the reopening of assessment legally flawed as there was no failure to disclose material facts. It also held that section 115JB does not apply to banking companies and that interest under section 234D was not applicable in this case. Consequently, the assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed based on these grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>