<?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>2022 (4) TMI 1283 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421617</link>
    <description>A BIFR-sanctioned amalgamation of a sick industrial company satisfies the statutory basis for carry forward and set-off of losses under section 72A of the Income-tax Act, because the sanctioned scheme implies the requisite findings on sickness, revival and public interest. The assessee was therefore entitled to claim the amalgamated company&#039;s losses, especially as the issue had already been accepted in its earlier case. Revision under section 263 was also unavailable because the assessment order was not shown to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue; the Assessing Officer had applied the governing legal position correctly, so the revisional order was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2022 17:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=677394" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 1283 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421617</link>
      <description>A BIFR-sanctioned amalgamation of a sick industrial company satisfies the statutory basis for carry forward and set-off of losses under section 72A of the Income-tax Act, because the sanctioned scheme implies the requisite findings on sickness, revival and public interest. The assessee was therefore entitled to claim the amalgamated company&#039;s losses, especially as the issue had already been accepted in its earlier case. Revision under section 263 was also unavailable because the assessment order was not shown to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue; the Assessing Officer had applied the governing legal position correctly, so the revisional order was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421617</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>