<?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>2020 (3) TMI 329 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393185</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax&#039;s decision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2014-15. The appeal was filed due to discrepancies in the assessee&#039;s revenue from operations and stock valuation, leading to an understatement of revenue by 5,65,28,821. The failure of the Assessing Officer to conduct necessary inquiries resulted in an erroneous assessment order. The ITAT emphasized the AO&#039;s duty to investigate and ascertain facts, concluding that the assessment order was prejudicial to revenue interests. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Pr. CIT&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2020 10:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606244" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 329 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393185</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax&#039;s decision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2014-15. The appeal was filed due to discrepancies in the assessee&#039;s revenue from operations and stock valuation, leading to an understatement of revenue by 5,65,28,821. The failure of the Assessing Officer to conduct necessary inquiries resulted in an erroneous assessment order. The ITAT emphasized the AO&#039;s duty to investigate and ascertain facts, concluding that the assessment order was prejudicial to revenue interests. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Pr. CIT&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>