<?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 (5) TMI 1178 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422918</link>
    <description>The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, quashing the rectification order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal found no apparent mistake in the assessment order justifying the rectification proceedings initiated based on objections raised by the LAP Audit. Emphasizing the importance of factual accuracy over presumptions, the ITAT concluded that the rectification order was unjustified in law. As a result, the order upholding the rectification was set aside, and the assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 May 2022 10:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=680161" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 1178 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422918</link>
      <description>The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, quashing the rectification order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal found no apparent mistake in the assessment order justifying the rectification proceedings initiated based on objections raised by the LAP Audit. Emphasizing the importance of factual accuracy over presumptions, the ITAT concluded that the rectification order was unjustified in law. As a result, the order upholding the rectification was set aside, and the assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>