<?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 (11) TMI 1332 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307105</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the cross-objections for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, holding that additions made by the AO under sections 68 and 69C were unsustainable without incriminating material. The Revenue&#039;s appeals for these years were dismissed. For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s order, as the assessee provided sufficient evidence for transactions, discrediting the AO&#039;s reliance on third-party statements and SEBI orders. The Revenue&#039;s appeals for these years were also dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Mar 2023 11:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=707943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 1332 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307105</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the cross-objections for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, holding that additions made by the AO under sections 68 and 69C were unsustainable without incriminating material. The Revenue&#039;s appeals for these years were dismissed. For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s order, as the assessee provided sufficient evidence for transactions, discrediting the AO&#039;s reliance on third-party statements and SEBI orders. The Revenue&#039;s appeals for these years were also dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307105</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>