<?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>1996 (8) TMI 14 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17026</link>
    <description>A loss return filed within the statutory period then available under section 139(4), though beyond section 139(1), supported determination and carry forward of loss under the unamended scheme before the 1 April 1989 amendment to section 80 took effect. The assessee&#039;s right was not defeated merely because the return was not filed within section 139(1), as the governing law at the relevant time still permitted the claim. Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 could not be invoked unless the assessment order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, so a mere difference of view on carry forward was insufficient.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:36:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56026" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 14 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17026</link>
      <description>A loss return filed within the statutory period then available under section 139(4), though beyond section 139(1), supported determination and carry forward of loss under the unamended scheme before the 1 April 1989 amendment to section 80 took effect. The assessee&#039;s right was not defeated merely because the return was not filed within section 139(1), as the governing law at the relevant time still permitted the claim. Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 could not be invoked unless the assessment order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, so a mere difference of view on carry forward was insufficient.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>