<?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>2014 (8) TMI 1087 - ITAT PANAJI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188822</link>
    <description>Revision under section 263 is sustainable where the assessment order reflects a lack of inquiry into a material land transaction and its capital gains implications. The Assessing Officer had sought details of the developer arrangement, but the assessee did not furnish the particulars and no meaningful examination was made on whether the transaction constituted a transfer under section 2(47) or created taxable capital gains in the relevant year. Such non-application of mind and failure to investigate a significant issue renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, so the revisional jurisdiction was properly invoked.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2016 12:42:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451834" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 1087 - ITAT PANAJI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188822</link>
      <description>Revision under section 263 is sustainable where the assessment order reflects a lack of inquiry into a material land transaction and its capital gains implications. The Assessing Officer had sought details of the developer arrangement, but the assessee did not furnish the particulars and no meaningful examination was made on whether the transaction constituted a transfer under section 2(47) or created taxable capital gains in the relevant year. Such non-application of mind and failure to investigate a significant issue renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, so the revisional jurisdiction was properly invoked.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188822</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>