<?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 618 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366882</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT&#039;s decision to revise the assessment order under section 263 for AY 2010-11, finding the original assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to the lack of inquiry into the deduction u/s 80P(2). Despite the assessee&#039;s arguments based on judicial precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the need for proper examination by the AO. The CIT&#039;s revision was deemed justified, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding the revised assessment order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:44:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=534029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 618 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366882</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT&#039;s decision to revise the assessment order under section 263 for AY 2010-11, finding the original assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to the lack of inquiry into the deduction u/s 80P(2). Despite the assessee&#039;s arguments based on judicial precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the need for proper examination by the AO. The CIT&#039;s revision was deemed justified, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding the revised assessment order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>