<?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>2025 (5) TMI 12 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769740</link>
    <description>ITAT Mumbai dismissed Revenue&#039;s rectification application u/s 254 regarding addition u/s 68 for unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal had previously deleted additions for 26 member-depositors where details were furnished and notices served, following Pragati Credit Corporative Society precedent. Revenue sought clarification on Tribunal&#039;s direction to substantiate identity of remaining member-depositors. ITAT held no mistake apparent on record existed, clarifying that Revenue retained right to investigate other member-depositors while assessee could raise contentions before AO. Following Reliance Telecom precedent, rectification was denied as no apparent error warranted correction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 May 2025 08:46:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=818601" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 12 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769740</link>
      <description>ITAT Mumbai dismissed Revenue&#039;s rectification application u/s 254 regarding addition u/s 68 for unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal had previously deleted additions for 26 member-depositors where details were furnished and notices served, following Pragati Credit Corporative Society precedent. Revenue sought clarification on Tribunal&#039;s direction to substantiate identity of remaining member-depositors. ITAT held no mistake apparent on record existed, clarifying that Revenue retained right to investigate other member-depositors while assessee could raise contentions before AO. Following Reliance Telecom precedent, rectification was denied as no apparent error warranted correction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>