<?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>1981 (9) TMI 174 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62984</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the limited company in a dispute over reassessment for the assessment year 1958-59. The Income-tax Officer had treated a settlement amount as a reduction in machinery price, leading to the reassessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, prompting the company to appeal. The Tribunal, after differing opinions between the Accountant Member and the Judicial Member, ultimately sided with the latter. It held that the settlement amount was compensation for breach of warranty, not a price reduction, and that the reassessment was unwarranted. The case was remanded for final disposal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:46:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=101428" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (9) TMI 174 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62984</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the limited company in a dispute over reassessment for the assessment year 1958-59. The Income-tax Officer had treated a settlement amount as a reduction in machinery price, leading to the reassessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, prompting the company to appeal. The Tribunal, after differing opinions between the Accountant Member and the Judicial Member, ultimately sided with the latter. It held that the settlement amount was compensation for breach of warranty, not a price reduction, and that the reassessment was unwarranted. The case was remanded for final disposal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62984</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>