<?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>2003 (11) TMI 296 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63281</link>
    <description>Section 263 revision is unavailable where the Assessing Officer has examined the acquisition record, applied the relevant law and case law, and adopted one of the possible views on taxability. The article explains that the Commissioner cannot revise an assessment merely because another view is preferred; the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. On the underlying issue, interest arising from compulsory acquisition of land was analysed by reference to whether it compensated deprivation of money after valid vesting or reflected the right to retain possession, with the facts supporting treatment as a capital receipt. The revisional order was held unsustainable and the assessment based on the Assessing Officer&#039;s view was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:35:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=101725" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 296 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63281</link>
      <description>Section 263 revision is unavailable where the Assessing Officer has examined the acquisition record, applied the relevant law and case law, and adopted one of the possible views on taxability. The article explains that the Commissioner cannot revise an assessment merely because another view is preferred; the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. On the underlying issue, interest arising from compulsory acquisition of land was analysed by reference to whether it compensated deprivation of money after valid vesting or reflected the right to retain possession, with the facts supporting treatment as a capital receipt. The revisional order was held unsustainable and the assessment based on the Assessing Officer&#039;s view was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63281</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>