<?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 (1) TMI 1855 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471889</link>
    <description>Condonation of a deliberately delayed appeal requires cogent material establishing sufficient cause; prima facie merits may be relevant where limitation would otherwise defeat a deserving claim. Revision under section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. An unreconciled credit balance, despite material suggesting it arose from completed-work bills, supported examination of the assessment&#039;s correctness. A subsequent-year ledger did not specifically prove that the disputed amount was offered to tax, and TDS credit alone did not establish income disclosure. On these facts, the deliberate delay lacked sufficient cause and the delayed challenge to revision was not entertained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2026 13:47:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=924952" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 1855 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471889</link>
      <description>Condonation of a deliberately delayed appeal requires cogent material establishing sufficient cause; prima facie merits may be relevant where limitation would otherwise defeat a deserving claim. Revision under section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. An unreconciled credit balance, despite material suggesting it arose from completed-work bills, supported examination of the assessment&#039;s correctness. A subsequent-year ledger did not specifically prove that the disputed amount was offered to tax, and TDS credit alone did not establish income disclosure. On these facts, the deliberate delay lacked sufficient cause and the delayed challenge to revision was not entertained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>