<?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>2007 (7) TMI 304 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40388</link>
    <description>SC held the period of limitation under s.263(2) begins from the date of the assessment order, not from a later reassessment order. The Commissioner&#039;s revisional action related to the lease equalisation fund, which was not part of the reassessment, was initiated after the prescribed limitation and therefore was without jurisdiction and void. The revisional proceeding was declared a nullity and the taxpayer&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2025 11:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78924" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 304 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40388</link>
      <description>SC held the period of limitation under s.263(2) begins from the date of the assessment order, not from a later reassessment order. The Commissioner&#039;s revisional action related to the lease equalisation fund, which was not part of the reassessment, was initiated after the prescribed limitation and therefore was without jurisdiction and void. The revisional proceeding was declared a nullity and the taxpayer&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40388</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>