<?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 (2) TMI 1860 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468684</link>
    <description>Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was held unavailable where the Assessing Officer had conducted enquiries, examined the assessee&#039;s books and statements, and completed the assessment under section 143(3) on one of the possible views of the material. The ITAT found that revision cannot be based merely on a different possible view when the assessment is neither shown to be erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. On that footing, the revisional order was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 17 May 2026 09:19:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=902436" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1860 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468684</link>
      <description>Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was held unavailable where the Assessing Officer had conducted enquiries, examined the assessee&#039;s books and statements, and completed the assessment under section 143(3) on one of the possible views of the material. The ITAT found that revision cannot be based merely on a different possible view when the assessment is neither shown to be erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. On that footing, the revisional order was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>