<?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 (9) TMI 795 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443173</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing the exemption of long-term capital gains and making the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act without sufficient evidence. The Tribunal noted that the evidence provided by the assessee was not adequately addressed by the AO, and there was no concrete evidence linking the assessee to price manipulation. The appeal was allowed on 23/08/2023.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Sep 2023 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=726399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 795 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443173</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing the exemption of long-term capital gains and making the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act without sufficient evidence. The Tribunal noted that the evidence provided by the assessee was not adequately addressed by the AO, and there was no concrete evidence linking the assessee to price manipulation. The appeal was allowed on 23/08/2023.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443173</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>