<?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>2026 (3) TMI 810 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788055</link>
    <description>Restoration was ordered because the appellate order was passed ex parte and material valuation evidence (Departmental Valuation Officer report and stamp duty tolerance contention) was not considered, engaging the assessee&#039;s right to fair hearing and natural justice; the Tribunal directed remittance to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and a speaking, reasoned order, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 08:42:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=890706" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 810 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788055</link>
      <description>Restoration was ordered because the appellate order was passed ex parte and material valuation evidence (Departmental Valuation Officer report and stamp duty tolerance contention) was not considered, engaging the assessee&#039;s right to fair hearing and natural justice; the Tribunal directed remittance to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and a speaking, reasoned order, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788055</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>