<?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 (3) TMI 2080 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470376</link>
    <description>Signed software-development contracts, omitted when soft copies were inadvertently uploaded instead of scanned executed documents, were admitted as additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income-tax Rules because they were critical to verifying the claim for professional charges. The disallowance of those charges was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity, with the merits and remaining contentions left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 21:47:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=913455" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 2080 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470376</link>
      <description>Signed software-development contracts, omitted when soft copies were inadvertently uploaded instead of scanned executed documents, were admitted as additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income-tax Rules because they were critical to verifying the claim for professional charges. The disallowance of those charges was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity, with the merits and remaining contentions left open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470376</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>