<?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>2025 (4) TMI 1552 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769638</link>
    <description>ITAT Chennai quashed CIT&#039;s revision order u/s 263 challenging charitable exemption u/s 11. The tribunal held that AO conducted thorough enquiry after issuing notices and properly verified assessee&#039;s activities qualified for exemption u/s 2(15). CIT&#039;s findings were deemed whimsical and inconclusive regarding three disputed payments - investment in television company, corpus donation to educational institution, and advance tax payment. AO had followed Madras HC decision in assessee&#039;s favor and took plausible view permitted under law. Since AO considered all issues on merits and assessment order was not erroneous, CIT&#039;s revision was without jurisdiction. Appeal decided in favor of assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2025 08:33:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=818015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 1552 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769638</link>
      <description>ITAT Chennai quashed CIT&#039;s revision order u/s 263 challenging charitable exemption u/s 11. The tribunal held that AO conducted thorough enquiry after issuing notices and properly verified assessee&#039;s activities qualified for exemption u/s 2(15). CIT&#039;s findings were deemed whimsical and inconclusive regarding three disputed payments - investment in television company, corpus donation to educational institution, and advance tax payment. AO had followed Madras HC decision in assessee&#039;s favor and took plausible view permitted under law. Since AO considered all issues on merits and assessment order was not erroneous, CIT&#039;s revision was without jurisdiction. Appeal decided in favor of assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769638</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>