<?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>Tax Officer Overreaches in Limited Scrutiny; Invalid Assessment Order for Exceeding Capital Gains Review Scope.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81675</link>
    <description>The case pertains to the scope of limited scrutiny by the assessing officer regarding computation of capital gains u/s 45 and providing exemption u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act. The key points are: The assessee&#039;s case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the deduction claimed u/s 54B. However, the assessing officer exceeded jurisdiction by disallowing the fair market value claimed u/s 45 for computing capital gains, which was beyond the limited scrutiny scope. This violated CBDT instructions limiting the scrutiny scope. The assessment order u/s 143(3) became invalid as the officer traveled beyond the assigned jurisdiction of limited scrutiny. To examine aspects beyond limited scrutiny like cost of acquisition u/s 45, the assessing off.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2024 08:01:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2024 08:01:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tax Officer Overreaches in Limited Scrutiny; Invalid Assessment Order for Exceeding Capital Gains Review Scope.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81675</link>
      <description>The case pertains to the scope of limited scrutiny by the assessing officer regarding computation of capital gains u/s 45 and providing exemption u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act. The key points are: The assessee&#039;s case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the deduction claimed u/s 54B. However, the assessing officer exceeded jurisdiction by disallowing the fair market value claimed u/s 45 for computing capital gains, which was beyond the limited scrutiny scope. This violated CBDT instructions limiting the scrutiny scope. The assessment order u/s 143(3) became invalid as the officer traveled beyond the assigned jurisdiction of limited scrutiny. To examine aspects beyond limited scrutiny like cost of acquisition u/s 45, the assessing off.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2024 08:01:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>