Is there a Soul in Buddhism?
It may be worth you checking out the texts of Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen.
Kunchen Dolpopa-la was not afraid of using the terms of ātman ("Self").
Also, please considering reading the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. There are some interesting verses within it which may be of interest to you:
"Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed 'the Self' [atman]. This is as in the case of the great Doctor who well understands the milk medicine. The same is the case with the Tathagata. For the sake of beings, he says "there is the Self in all things" O you the four classes! Learn Dharma thus!"
"“Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! Is there Self in the 25 existences or not?" The Buddha said: "O good man! "Self" means "Tathagatagarbha" [Buddha-Womb, Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements. That is why man cannot see it."
"So-called 'Emptiness' is neither viewed as Emptiness nor as non-Emptiness. The wise perceive Emptiness and non-Emptiness, the Eternal [nitya] and the Impermanent [anitya], Suffering [duhkha] and Bliss [sukha], Self [atman] and non-Self [anatman]. The Empty is the totality of samsara, and the non-Empty is Great Nirvana; non-Self is samsara, and the Self is Great Nirvana [maha-nirvana]. To perceive the Emptiness of everything and not to perceive non-Emptiness is not termed the Middle Way; to perceive the non-Self of everything and not to perceive the Self is not termed the Middle Way. The Middle Way is termed the Buddha-dhatu. For this reason, the Buddha-dhatu is eternal and unchanging. Because beings are enveloped in ignorance, they are unable to perceive it."
I personally don't see a difference between Tathāgathagarbha/Buddha-Dhatu and many forms of Ātman. I personally would not follow a form of Buddhism which believes there was nothing innate within us. I am aware that there can be different conceptions of ātman and soul, though, and the ātman of many modern Hindus was not as common as in the past, and many conceptions of soul fall into a sort of Abrahamic thought, which I don't think really works with Buddhism too well.
Just this fool's opinion, but I don't expect anyone else to adhere to it.