<?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 (11) TMI 267 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388018</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal allowed the Assessee&#039;s appeal, setting aside the reassessment proceedings for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment was based on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, which is impermissible under the law. As a result, the disallowance of expenditure incurred in connection with property transfer was not addressed on its merits. The Tribunal held that the reassessment was not valid and lacked jurisdiction, ultimately ruling in favor of the Assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2019 12:13:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=593144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 267 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388018</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal allowed the Assessee&#039;s appeal, setting aside the reassessment proceedings for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment was based on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, which is impermissible under the law. As a result, the disallowance of expenditure incurred in connection with property transfer was not addressed on its merits. The Tribunal held that the reassessment was not valid and lacked jurisdiction, ultimately ruling in favor of the Assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388018</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>