<?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 (9) TMI 1362 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778873</link>
    <description>Interest received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on enhanced compensation was treated as part of the compensation, and the assessment records showed that the Assessing Officer had queried the issue and accepted the assessee&#039;s explanation. On that basis, the matter could not be characterised as a case of no enquiry or lack of enquiry, and the absence of detailed discussion in the assessment order did not by itself make the order erroneous. The revision under section 263 was therefore not available where the assessment had adopted one possible view on a debatable issue, even if the Principal Commissioner preferred a different view or relied on an audit objection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 08:08:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=854081" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 1362 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778873</link>
      <description>Interest received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on enhanced compensation was treated as part of the compensation, and the assessment records showed that the Assessing Officer had queried the issue and accepted the assessee&#039;s explanation. On that basis, the matter could not be characterised as a case of no enquiry or lack of enquiry, and the absence of detailed discussion in the assessment order did not by itself make the order erroneous. The revision under section 263 was therefore not available where the assessment had adopted one possible view on a debatable issue, even if the Principal Commissioner preferred a different view or relied on an audit objection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>