<?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 (10) TMI 925 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333905</link>
    <description>The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under section 263 was quashed, restoring the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under section 143(3). The tribunal emphasized that for the CIT to assume jurisdiction under section 263, both conditions-erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue-must co-exist, which was not the case in this matter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446065" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 925 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333905</link>
      <description>The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under section 263 was quashed, restoring the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under section 143(3). The tribunal emphasized that for the CIT to assume jurisdiction under section 263, both conditions-erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue-must co-exist, which was not the case in this matter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333905</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>