<?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>2024 (9) TMI 1504 - ITAT RAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759260</link>
    <description>The ITAT Raipur rejected the department&#039;s miscellaneous application seeking rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The department requested rehearing of a tribunal order regarding assessment jurisdiction under section 153A where requisition was made under section 132A. The tribunal held that the department&#039;s lengthy contentions requiring detailed deliberation did not constitute a mistake apparent from record warranting rectification. The application was deemed an impermissible attempt at review rather than rectification, as the department failed to identify any glaring mistake on the face of records that would justify invoking section 254(2) powers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2024 08:18:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770771" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 1504 - ITAT RAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759260</link>
      <description>The ITAT Raipur rejected the department&#039;s miscellaneous application seeking rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The department requested rehearing of a tribunal order regarding assessment jurisdiction under section 153A where requisition was made under section 132A. The tribunal held that the department&#039;s lengthy contentions requiring detailed deliberation did not constitute a mistake apparent from record warranting rectification. The application was deemed an impermissible attempt at review rather than rectification, as the department failed to identify any glaring mistake on the face of records that would justify invoking section 254(2) powers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759260</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>