<?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>2023 (4) TMI 566 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436540</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. It concluded that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) erred in invoking jurisdiction under section 263 as the Assessing Officer had adequately inquired into the long-term capital gains. The PCIT&#039;s order was quashed, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2023 16:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=710762" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (4) TMI 566 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436540</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. It concluded that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) erred in invoking jurisdiction under section 263 as the Assessing Officer had adequately inquired into the long-term capital gains. The PCIT&#039;s order was quashed, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436540</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>