<?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>2008 (1) TMI 497 - ITAT PUNE-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71378</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT&#039;s invocation of Section 263 of the IT Act, dismissing the appeal and confirming that the AO&#039;s order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue&#039;s interests. The Tribunal supported the CIT&#039;s directions for further investigation and fresh assessment, emphasizing the broad scope of Section 263 to allow revision of orders deemed incorrect. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT&#039;s findings on setting aside the order under Section 158BC, non-consideration of required investments for undisclosed turnover, and the non-application of Section 40A(3) regarding cash purchases, leading to the decision to remit the matter for a fresh assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Aug 2012 15:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109705" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 497 - ITAT PUNE-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71378</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT&#039;s invocation of Section 263 of the IT Act, dismissing the appeal and confirming that the AO&#039;s order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue&#039;s interests. The Tribunal supported the CIT&#039;s directions for further investigation and fresh assessment, emphasizing the broad scope of Section 263 to allow revision of orders deemed incorrect. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT&#039;s findings on setting aside the order under Section 158BC, non-consideration of required investments for undisclosed turnover, and the non-application of Section 40A(3) regarding cash purchases, leading to the decision to remit the matter for a fresh assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71378</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>