<?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 (4) TMI 1221 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378777</link>
    <description>The appeal against the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2011-2012 was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax regarding debit balances written-off claimed as business loss under relevant sections of the IT Act. The Tribunal found the assessment order erroneous due to the lack of examination by the Assessing Officer on the treatment of the written-off amounts in previous years, leading to a ruling in favor of the revenue&#039;s interests.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2019 08:26:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=567839" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1221 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378777</link>
      <description>The appeal against the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2011-2012 was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax regarding debit balances written-off claimed as business loss under relevant sections of the IT Act. The Tribunal found the assessment order erroneous due to the lack of examination by the Assessing Officer on the treatment of the written-off amounts in previous years, leading to a ruling in favor of the revenue&#039;s interests.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378777</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>