<?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>1980 (3) TMI 163 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69736</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority&#039;s decision in a tax case, determining that capital gains of Rs. 40,000 were long term and assessable under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal dismissed the Department&#039;s appeal, emphasizing the assessee&#039;s long-term possession of the routes. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the first appellate authority had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal despite the assessee&#039;s initial acceptance of the proposed assessment, as the ITO cannot erroneously compute liability. The Tribunal also rejected the Department&#039;s argument that the assessee&#039;s written acceptance precluded an appeal, highlighting the distinction between known tax effects and statutory requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:55:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (3) TMI 163 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69736</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority&#039;s decision in a tax case, determining that capital gains of Rs. 40,000 were long term and assessable under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal dismissed the Department&#039;s appeal, emphasizing the assessee&#039;s long-term possession of the routes. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the first appellate authority had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal despite the assessee&#039;s initial acceptance of the proposed assessment, as the ITO cannot erroneously compute liability. The Tribunal also rejected the Department&#039;s argument that the assessee&#039;s written acceptance precluded an appeal, highlighting the distinction between known tax effects and statutory requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>