<?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 (12) TMI 103 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401304</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld that the consideration received by the assessee upon retirement from the partnership firm was not taxable as capital gains. It also upheld the disallowance of finance charges under Section 36(1)(iii). However, the ITAT partially allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, directing the AO to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 32,920 and delete the balance of Rs. 3,26,873.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2020 08:04:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=629280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 103 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401304</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld that the consideration received by the assessee upon retirement from the partnership firm was not taxable as capital gains. It also upheld the disallowance of finance charges under Section 36(1)(iii). However, the ITAT partially allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, directing the AO to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 32,920 and delete the balance of Rs. 3,26,873.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401304</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>