<?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 (5) TMI 452 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770180</link>
    <description>The SC dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging the CIT&#039;s revision order under section 263 regarding the allowability of expenditure and carry forward of losses. The Court held that the ITAT erred in quashing the CIT&#039;s order, as the conditions for revision under section 263 were satisfied. The CIT had provided the assessee an opportunity to be heard and directed the AO to verify the claims in accordance with law. The SC found no grounds to interfere under Article 136, leaving all other contentions open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2025 14:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=820016" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 452 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770180</link>
      <description>The SC dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging the CIT&#039;s revision order under section 263 regarding the allowability of expenditure and carry forward of losses. The Court held that the ITAT erred in quashing the CIT&#039;s order, as the conditions for revision under section 263 were satisfied. The CIT had provided the assessee an opportunity to be heard and directed the AO to verify the claims in accordance with law. The SC found no grounds to interfere under Article 136, leaving all other contentions open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770180</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>