<?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>2004 (9) TMI 667 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188904</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer lacked a valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment in the case challenging jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the initiation of re-assessment proceedings and the additions made by the Assessing Officer were invalid, as they were based on doubts and surmises without concrete evidence, contrary to legal provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed all three appeals by the assessee, canceling the re-assessment orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:13:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 667 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188904</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer lacked a valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment in the case challenging jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the initiation of re-assessment proceedings and the additions made by the Assessing Officer were invalid, as they were based on doubts and surmises without concrete evidence, contrary to legal provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed all three appeals by the assessee, canceling the re-assessment orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>