<?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>2016 (3) TMI 88 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272276</link>
    <description>The Tribunal quashed the Commissioner of Income Tax&#039;s order under Section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, restoring the assessment order. The appeal was allowed as the Assessing Officer had conducted proper inquiries, allowing the exemption under Section 54F in compliance with the law. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner could not revise the order based on a differing opinion when the Assessing Officer had thoroughly examined the issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2016 11:14:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=418824" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 88 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272276</link>
      <description>The Tribunal quashed the Commissioner of Income Tax&#039;s order under Section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, restoring the assessment order. The appeal was allowed as the Assessing Officer had conducted proper inquiries, allowing the exemption under Section 54F in compliance with the law. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner could not revise the order based on a differing opinion when the Assessing Officer had thoroughly examined the issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>