<?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 (8) TMI 149 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397206</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications, stating there was no apparent mistake in the order. The Tribunal clarified it lacked the authority to review its decisions under section 254(2) of the IT Act. The decision for AY 2011-12 was applied to AY 2012-13, with procedural delays addressed due to the COVID-19 lockdown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2020 13:56:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619363" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 149 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397206</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications, stating there was no apparent mistake in the order. The Tribunal clarified it lacked the authority to review its decisions under section 254(2) of the IT Act. The decision for AY 2011-12 was applied to AY 2012-13, with procedural delays addressed due to the COVID-19 lockdown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>