<?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>1990 (3) TMI 368 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186018</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the Commissioner could not compel the Income-tax Officer to pass an order charging interest under section 215 as it was not included in the original assessment order. The Court found that the Commissioner&#039;s action to revise the assessment order for this reason was beyond the scope of section 263. The Court declined to address the applicability of section 215 due to the favorable resolution of the first issue for the assessee. No costs were awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2016 18:02:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440165" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (3) TMI 368 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186018</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the Commissioner could not compel the Income-tax Officer to pass an order charging interest under section 215 as it was not included in the original assessment order. The Court found that the Commissioner&#039;s action to revise the assessment order for this reason was beyond the scope of section 263. The Court declined to address the applicability of section 215 due to the favorable resolution of the first issue for the assessee. No costs were awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186018</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>