<?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>2018 (5) TMI 1258 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360694</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, a Co-Operative bank, in an appeal against the Commissioner&#039;s order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, thereby quashing the Commissioner&#039;s order as time-barred. The judgment emphasized the significance of complying with procedural timelines and the Commissioner&#039;s jurisdictional boundaries in revising assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, 1961.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2018 12:28:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=521109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1258 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360694</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, a Co-Operative bank, in an appeal against the Commissioner&#039;s order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, thereby quashing the Commissioner&#039;s order as time-barred. The judgment emphasized the significance of complying with procedural timelines and the Commissioner&#039;s jurisdictional boundaries in revising assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, 1961.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360694</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>