<?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 (9) TMI 499 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76888</link>
    <description>HC held that the Tribunal correctly found the Assessing Officer&#039;s (AO) view to be a possible view, so the condition precedent for invoking jurisdiction under s.263 did not exist. Consequently the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner under s.263. The question of law was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2025 12:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 499 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76888</link>
      <description>HC held that the Tribunal correctly found the Assessing Officer&#039;s (AO) view to be a possible view, so the condition precedent for invoking jurisdiction under s.263 did not exist. Consequently the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner under s.263. The question of law was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>