<?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 (9) TMI 350 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385582</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)&#039;s order under section 263 of the IT Act for assessment year 2012-13, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine issues and pass a fresh order after affording the assessee a hearing. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer had considered the issues and passed a speaking order, with previous tribunal decisions supporting the assessee&#039;s position on exemption under section 11. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal held the CIT(E) was not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 as the Assessing Officer&#039;s order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue interests, ultimately allowing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2019 08:13:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=586562" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 350 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385582</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)&#039;s order under section 263 of the IT Act for assessment year 2012-13, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine issues and pass a fresh order after affording the assessee a hearing. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer had considered the issues and passed a speaking order, with previous tribunal decisions supporting the assessee&#039;s position on exemption under section 11. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal held the CIT(E) was not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 as the Assessing Officer&#039;s order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue interests, ultimately allowing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385582</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>