<?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>2021 (6) TMI 69 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408173</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to allow the assessee&#039;s claim of &amp;amp;8377; 2,85,42,477/- under section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The property in question was not considered a fresh purchase but inherited by the appellant, leading to the deletion of the addition under the Act. The tribunal found the CIT(A)&#039;s decision well-founded and dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal on a formal issue, pronouncing judgment on 31/05/2021.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2021 17:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=645734" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (6) TMI 69 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408173</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to allow the assessee&#039;s claim of &amp;amp;8377; 2,85,42,477/- under section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The property in question was not considered a fresh purchase but inherited by the appellant, leading to the deletion of the addition under the Act. The tribunal found the CIT(A)&#039;s decision well-founded and dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal on a formal issue, pronouncing judgment on 31/05/2021.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408173</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>