<?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>2013 (1) TMI 1079 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470448</link>
    <description>Second revisional action cannot validly rest on a consequential assessment order where the earlier revisional order that solely founded that assessment has been quashed. The consequential assessment consequently lacks independent survival and cannot support further revision. If the later revision is instead treated as directed at the original block assessment, it must satisfy the statutory two-year limitation governing revisional jurisdiction. A second revision in these circumstances is unsustainable and time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2026 10:43:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=913947" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 1079 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470448</link>
      <description>Second revisional action cannot validly rest on a consequential assessment order where the earlier revisional order that solely founded that assessment has been quashed. The consequential assessment consequently lacks independent survival and cannot support further revision. If the later revision is instead treated as directed at the original block assessment, it must satisfy the statutory two-year limitation governing revisional jurisdiction. A second revision in these circumstances is unsustainable and time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>