<?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 (7) TMI 1608 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464829</link>
    <description>The assessee sought rectification, alleging that Ground No. 5 had been omitted from the Tribunal&#039;s order and that the apparent mistake should be corrected by recalling the order. At hearing, however, the authorised representative did not press Ground No. 5. The Tribunal therefore treated that ground as withdrawn and dismissed it, with the result that the appeal on the disputed issue was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2025 20:07:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 1608 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464829</link>
      <description>The assessee sought rectification, alleging that Ground No. 5 had been omitted from the Tribunal&#039;s order and that the apparent mistake should be corrected by recalling the order. At hearing, however, the authorised representative did not press Ground No. 5. The Tribunal therefore treated that ground as withdrawn and dismissed it, with the result that the appeal on the disputed issue was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464829</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>