<?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>2020 (3) TMI 552 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393408</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the ITAT&#039;s decisions on all issues. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted, as sufficient interest-free funds were available. No law question arose under Section 36(1)(iii). The Tribunal&#039;s decision under Section 115JB was upheld, and the addition under Section 69-C was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of bogus purchases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2024 17:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606851" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 552 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393408</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the ITAT&#039;s decisions on all issues. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted, as sufficient interest-free funds were available. No law question arose under Section 36(1)(iii). The Tribunal&#039;s decision under Section 115JB was upheld, and the addition under Section 69-C was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of bogus purchases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393408</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>