<?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 (4) TMI 1197 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458594</link>
    <description>A computation sheet and consequential notice of demand could not be sustained where the assessment order itself recorded that no addition was made to the returned income. The return had been processed under section 143(1), and on scrutiny the assessment order concluded that no further addition was necessary. Because the demand raised in the computation sheet was inconsistent with that assessment order and disclosed a patent error, the impugned demand was unsustainable and was quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2024 19:59:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=776937" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 1197 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458594</link>
      <description>A computation sheet and consequential notice of demand could not be sustained where the assessment order itself recorded that no addition was made to the returned income. The return had been processed under section 143(1), and on scrutiny the assessment order concluded that no further addition was necessary. Because the demand raised in the computation sheet was inconsistent with that assessment order and disclosed a patent error, the impugned demand was unsustainable and was quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458594</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>