<?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>2014 (12) TMI 1359 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286779</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals and partially allowed the Cross Objections for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10, treating the Cross Objection for 2010-11 as allowed. The decision clarified that the requirement of passing an order under section 201(1) / 201(1A) of the Act did not apply when no payments were made to stockiests. Additionally, it was ruled that the provisions of section 194J did not need to be invoked for Director&#039;s Sitting Fees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Mar 2020 13:19:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 1359 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286779</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals and partially allowed the Cross Objections for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10, treating the Cross Objection for 2010-11 as allowed. The decision clarified that the requirement of passing an order under section 201(1) / 201(1A) of the Act did not apply when no payments were made to stockiests. Additionally, it was ruled that the provisions of section 194J did not need to be invoked for Director&#039;s Sitting Fees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>