<?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>1990 (11) TMI 188 - ITAT BOMBAY-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58896</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the CIT&#039;s orders. It held that Section 64(1)(vii) was not applicable, the transactions did not constitute cross-gifts, and the income arose from business activities managed by the trustees, not directly from the transferred assets. The decision was supported by precedents, including the Supreme Court&#039;s rulings in relevant cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:45:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (11) TMI 188 - ITAT BOMBAY-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58896</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the CIT&#039;s orders. It held that Section 64(1)(vii) was not applicable, the transactions did not constitute cross-gifts, and the income arose from business activities managed by the trustees, not directly from the transferred assets. The decision was supported by precedents, including the Supreme Court&#039;s rulings in relevant cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58896</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>