<?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 467 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397524</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need to prevent double taxation in line with legal principles. The Assessing Officer was directed to reconsider the addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, taking into account the decision of the Bombay High Court to avoid double taxation. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order, underscoring the importance of fair adjudication and compliance with legal precedents to uphold natural justice principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:08:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=620185" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 467 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397524</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need to prevent double taxation in line with legal principles. The Assessing Officer was directed to reconsider the addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, taking into account the decision of the Bombay High Court to avoid double taxation. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order, underscoring the importance of fair adjudication and compliance with legal precedents to uphold natural justice principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397524</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>