<?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>2013 (12) TMI 843 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241178</link>
    <description>Section 263 revision cannot be used to disturb regular assessments when the very transactions relied on have already been examined in final block assessment proceedings and found to be disclosed and genuine. The article notes that the revisional notice treated lease and buy-back transactions as sham, but the block assessment Tribunal had held that they were recorded in the books, did not generate undisclosed income, and could not justify denial of depreciation on that basis. Because those findings had attained finality, there was no surviving material to show that the regular assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue on the same issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339755" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 843 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241178</link>
      <description>Section 263 revision cannot be used to disturb regular assessments when the very transactions relied on have already been examined in final block assessment proceedings and found to be disclosed and genuine. The article notes that the revisional notice treated lease and buy-back transactions as sham, but the block assessment Tribunal had held that they were recorded in the books, did not generate undisclosed income, and could not justify denial of depreciation on that basis. Because those findings had attained finality, there was no surviving material to show that the regular assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue on the same issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241178</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>