<?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 (11) TMI 212 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252895</link>
    <description>The Tribunal quashed the orders passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and allowed the appeals of the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT had failed to establish that the assessment orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT did not provide adequate opportunity to the appellant and did not adhere to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was consistent with the view taken in the case of M/s R.B. Enterprises.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2014 10:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 212 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252895</link>
      <description>The Tribunal quashed the orders passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and allowed the appeals of the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT had failed to establish that the assessment orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT did not provide adequate opportunity to the appellant and did not adhere to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was consistent with the view taken in the case of M/s R.B. Enterprises.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>