<?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>CIT&#039;s Revision Upheld: Lack of Evidence on Prior Period Expenses Deemed Harmful to Revenue u/s 263.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=66721</link>
    <description>Revision u/s 263 by CIT - we could not made out any evidence of the assessee having explained the issue of &#039;prior period expenses&#039; before the AO. Therefore, assessment order passed by the AO on the issue of &#039;prior period expenses&#039; is definitely erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue - Revision order sustained - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2022 17:09:43 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2022 17:09:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=696645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>CIT&#039;s Revision Upheld: Lack of Evidence on Prior Period Expenses Deemed Harmful to Revenue u/s 263.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=66721</link>
      <description>Revision u/s 263 by CIT - we could not made out any evidence of the assessee having explained the issue of &#039;prior period expenses&#039; before the AO. Therefore, assessment order passed by the AO on the issue of &#039;prior period expenses&#039; is definitely erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue - Revision order sustained - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2022 17:09:43 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=66721</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>