<?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>2011 (1) TMI 1536 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277071</link>
    <description>The Tribunal quashed the Commissioner of Income Tax&#039;s order under Section 263, finding that the Assessing Officer&#039;s order was not erroneous and the CIT&#039;s action was time-barred. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT&#039;s interpretation of Section 80AB, stating that the issue was debatable. It held that when two views are possible, the CIT cannot invoke Section 263 solely based on a difference in opinion. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2018 15:06:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=543543" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 1536 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277071</link>
      <description>The Tribunal quashed the Commissioner of Income Tax&#039;s order under Section 263, finding that the Assessing Officer&#039;s order was not erroneous and the CIT&#039;s action was time-barred. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT&#039;s interpretation of Section 80AB, stating that the issue was debatable. It held that when two views are possible, the CIT cannot invoke Section 263 solely based on a difference in opinion. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>