<?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>2006 (5) TMI 51 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3464</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, reinstating the Assessing Officer&#039;s order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. The decision was based on finding a mistake apparent from the record, justifying the rectification made by the Assessing Officer. The court emphasized the permissibility of rectification for complex issues if there is certainty about the error and evidence supporting the correction, settling the conflicting views on adjusting losses for calculating benefits under section 80HHC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42816" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 51 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3464</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, reinstating the Assessing Officer&#039;s order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. The decision was based on finding a mistake apparent from the record, justifying the rectification made by the Assessing Officer. The court emphasized the permissibility of rectification for complex issues if there is certainty about the error and evidence supporting the correction, settling the conflicting views on adjusting losses for calculating benefits under section 80HHC.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3464</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>