<?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>2018 (6) TMI 1716 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289950</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the Revenue Department&#039;s appeal and allowed the Cross Objection by the assessee. It emphasized the importance of reasons recorded in reopening assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found the reasons for reopening lacking independent belief and substantive reasoning, leading to the deletion of the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer. The judgment highlighted the necessity for relevant material and proper reasoning in reassessment proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2020 10:26:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=621107" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 1716 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289950</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the Revenue Department&#039;s appeal and allowed the Cross Objection by the assessee. It emphasized the importance of reasons recorded in reopening assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found the reasons for reopening lacking independent belief and substantive reasoning, leading to the deletion of the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer. The judgment highlighted the necessity for relevant material and proper reasoning in reassessment proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>