<?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>2000 (2) TMI 75 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15070</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the trust and awarding costs. The Court found that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the assessment, as the material he relied on would not have altered the Income-tax Officer&#039;s final conclusion. The Court emphasized that the power of revision should correct errors prejudicial to revenue, not for conducting purposeless inquiries leading to the same result.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:11:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54070" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 75 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15070</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the trust and awarding costs. The Court found that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the assessment, as the material he relied on would not have altered the Income-tax Officer&#039;s final conclusion. The Court emphasized that the power of revision should correct errors prejudicial to revenue, not for conducting purposeless inquiries leading to the same result.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15070</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>