<?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 (1) TMI 1617 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468587</link>
    <description>Alleged cash on-money payments for purchase of a shop could not justify an addition under section 69 where the facts were identical to earlier coordinate bench rulings in the same project and the Revenue produced no new material, distinguishing fact, or contrary authority. Following those earlier decisions, the Tribunal held that the impugned addition was not sustainable on the record and deleted it in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 21:06:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=901821" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 1617 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468587</link>
      <description>Alleged cash on-money payments for purchase of a shop could not justify an addition under section 69 where the facts were identical to earlier coordinate bench rulings in the same project and the Revenue produced no new material, distinguishing fact, or contrary authority. Following those earlier decisions, the Tribunal held that the impugned addition was not sustainable on the record and deleted it in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468587</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>