<?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 (7) TMI 96 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409254</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the appointed date of 01.04.2013, as per the scheme approved by the High Court, was the correct valuation date for share issuance. The Tribunal found the assessee&#039;s valuation based on this date appropriate, leading to the deletion of the addition made under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act. Other issues raised by the assessee were not addressed as the valuation date discrepancy was determinative.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Jul 2021 08:56:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=648600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (7) TMI 96 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409254</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the appointed date of 01.04.2013, as per the scheme approved by the High Court, was the correct valuation date for share issuance. The Tribunal found the assessee&#039;s valuation based on this date appropriate, leading to the deletion of the addition made under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act. Other issues raised by the assessee were not addressed as the valuation date discrepancy was determinative.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409254</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>