<?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 (9) TMI 106 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366370</link>
    <description>The Court quashed the notice issued under Section 263 of the Income-Tax Act for the assessment year 1985-86. It found that the revisional authority failed to establish errors in the assessment order causing prejudice to the revenue. The Court highlighted that the grounds for revision were baseless, especially concerning sales commission expenditure and reserves creation, citing relevant precedents. Emphasizing the availability of statutory remedies and the jurisdiction of assessing authorities in such matters, the Court concluded that the notice lacked jurisdictional facts and was invalidated by retrospective amendments. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition without costs due to the prolonged pendency and lack of utility in responding to the notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2018 12:13:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532987" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 106 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366370</link>
      <description>The Court quashed the notice issued under Section 263 of the Income-Tax Act for the assessment year 1985-86. It found that the revisional authority failed to establish errors in the assessment order causing prejudice to the revenue. The Court highlighted that the grounds for revision were baseless, especially concerning sales commission expenditure and reserves creation, citing relevant precedents. Emphasizing the availability of statutory remedies and the jurisdiction of assessing authorities in such matters, the Court concluded that the notice lacked jurisdictional facts and was invalidated by retrospective amendments. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition without costs due to the prolonged pendency and lack of utility in responding to the notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366370</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>