<?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>2022 (1) TMI 85 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416620</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the addition made by the AO under section 68, emphasizing that the transactions in penny stock were genuine and conducted through legitimate channels. The ITAT found no evidence of wrongdoing or manipulation by the appellant, supporting the CIT(A)&#039;s ruling and rejecting the revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2022 18:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=666029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (1) TMI 85 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416620</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the addition made by the AO under section 68, emphasizing that the transactions in penny stock were genuine and conducted through legitimate channels. The ITAT found no evidence of wrongdoing or manipulation by the appellant, supporting the CIT(A)&#039;s ruling and rejecting the revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>