<?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>2023 (8) TMI 874 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441895</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the assessment order due to jurisdictional issues and deleting the addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit. It prevented double taxation of income declared under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016 by ruling that the income of the partnership firm should be taxed in the hands of the firm, not the partner. The decision was based on various legal precedents and CBDT circulars.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2023 11:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=723068" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 874 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441895</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the assessment order due to jurisdictional issues and deleting the addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit. It prevented double taxation of income declared under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016 by ruling that the income of the partnership firm should be taxed in the hands of the firm, not the partner. The decision was based on various legal precedents and CBDT circulars.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>