<?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 (9) TMI 96 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427151</link>
    <description>The tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, confirming that the additions under Sections 68 and 56(2)(viib) were rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The decision emphasized the adequacy of the evidence provided by the assessee and the appropriateness of the valuation method used for the preference shares.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2022 10:21:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=689588" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 96 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427151</link>
      <description>The tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, confirming that the additions under Sections 68 and 56(2)(viib) were rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The decision emphasized the adequacy of the evidence provided by the assessee and the appropriateness of the valuation method used for the preference shares.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427151</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>