<?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>2024 (10) TMI 1718 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463993</link>
    <description>ITAT Mumbai (AT) quashed reopening under s.147 because approval under s.151 was not properly granted, following the principle in Broadways Limited. On merits, the tribunal found the assessee had furnished documentary evidence of share purchases, dematerialisation, sales and payments, and AO failed to make enquiries or rebut the assessee&#039;s proof; therefore additions under s.68 and denial of exemption under s.10(38) were unsustainable. The assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2025 10:37:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=854602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1718 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463993</link>
      <description>ITAT Mumbai (AT) quashed reopening under s.147 because approval under s.151 was not properly granted, following the principle in Broadways Limited. On merits, the tribunal found the assessee had furnished documentary evidence of share purchases, dematerialisation, sales and payments, and AO failed to make enquiries or rebut the assessee&#039;s proof; therefore additions under s.68 and denial of exemption under s.10(38) were unsustainable. The assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>