<?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>2015 (5) TMI 813 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259939</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s order under section 263. It held that although there was an inquiry by the Assessing Officer, it was considered inadequate. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal found the Commissioner had wrongly exercised powers under section 263 as all necessary details were provided during assessment. The decision aligned with established legal principles, emphasizing the lack of jurisdiction for revision in such cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 May 2015 06:43:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386065" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 813 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259939</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s order under section 263. It held that although there was an inquiry by the Assessing Officer, it was considered inadequate. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal found the Commissioner had wrongly exercised powers under section 263 as all necessary details were provided during assessment. The decision aligned with established legal principles, emphasizing the lack of jurisdiction for revision in such cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259939</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>