<?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>2019 (3) TMI 899 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376878</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the CIT&#039;s order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the CIT&#039;s order deviated from the grounds mentioned in the notice, rendering it invalid and unsustainable. Emphasizing procedural fairness, the Court ruled in favor of the respondent-assessee, highlighting the necessity for the CIT to confine revisions under Section 263 to the specified grounds in the notice to ensure transparency and fairness in tax proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Mar 2019 11:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=563257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 899 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376878</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the CIT&#039;s order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the CIT&#039;s order deviated from the grounds mentioned in the notice, rendering it invalid and unsustainable. Emphasizing procedural fairness, the Court ruled in favor of the respondent-assessee, highlighting the necessity for the CIT to confine revisions under Section 263 to the specified grounds in the notice to ensure transparency and fairness in tax proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376878</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>