<?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 (5) TMI 1675 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283125</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax&#039;s order under section 263 was invalid due to the application of the Doctrine of Merger. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessment order had already been adjudicated by the Commissioner of Appeals, and thus, the Principal Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise it. The Tribunal did not address the alternative submissions of the assessee as they were rendered academic by the primary issue&#039;s resolution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Sep 2019 06:34:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=586503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 1675 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283125</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax&#039;s order under section 263 was invalid due to the application of the Doctrine of Merger. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessment order had already been adjudicated by the Commissioner of Appeals, and thus, the Principal Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise it. The Tribunal did not address the alternative submissions of the assessee as they were rendered academic by the primary issue&#039;s resolution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283125</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>