<?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>2014 (6) TMI 154 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248250</link>
    <description>Revision under Section 263 is unavailable where the Assessing Officer, after enquiry, adopts one of the permissible views on the assessee&#039;s claims; mere disagreement by the Commissioner is insufficient unless the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The assessment record showed detailed requisitions, document filing and hearings, so the absence of elaborate reasoning did not prove non-application of mind. The Tribunal was not required to give separate formal findings on each objection in the revision notice where its reasoning covered the substance of all points, and no perversity was shown because its view was supported by the record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2026 12:56:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 154 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248250</link>
      <description>Revision under Section 263 is unavailable where the Assessing Officer, after enquiry, adopts one of the permissible views on the assessee&#039;s claims; mere disagreement by the Commissioner is insufficient unless the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The assessment record showed detailed requisitions, document filing and hearings, so the absence of elaborate reasoning did not prove non-application of mind. The Tribunal was not required to give separate formal findings on each objection in the revision notice where its reasoning covered the substance of all points, and no perversity was shown because its view was supported by the record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248250</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>