<?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>2021 (8) TMI 631 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411053</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the revision orders under section 263 for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of justifying the invocation of revision jurisdiction and demonstrating errors in the assessment orders to uphold such decisions. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax failed to identify specific errors or discrepancies in the assessee&#039;s explanations, leading to the quashing of the revision orders in both appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2021 09:00:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=652958" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 631 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411053</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the revision orders under section 263 for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of justifying the invocation of revision jurisdiction and demonstrating errors in the assessment orders to uphold such decisions. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax failed to identify specific errors or discrepancies in the assessee&#039;s explanations, leading to the quashing of the revision orders in both appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411053</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>