<?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 (7) TMI 1943 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465380</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was whether the PCIT could invoke revisionary jurisdiction under s. 263 to revise an assessment completed under s. 143(3) with prior approval under s. 153D. The Tribunal held that once the AO&#039;s order is passed with the mandatory supervisory approval of the Addl. CIT under s. 153D, the PCIT is barred from revising that order under s. 263, even if the PCIT alleges lack of proper enquiry before allowing deduction under s. 54F. Consequently, the s. 263 order was quashed and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 22:30:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=872634" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1943 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465380</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was whether the PCIT could invoke revisionary jurisdiction under s. 263 to revise an assessment completed under s. 143(3) with prior approval under s. 153D. The Tribunal held that once the AO&#039;s order is passed with the mandatory supervisory approval of the Addl. CIT under s. 153D, the PCIT is barred from revising that order under s. 263, even if the PCIT alleges lack of proper enquiry before allowing deduction under s. 54F. Consequently, the s. 263 order was quashed and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465380</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>