<?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>2006 (10) TMI 261 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119865</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s decision and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. It was noted that the CIT(A) should have directed the Assessing Officer to conduct the inquiry due to the complexity of evidence. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:59:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156861" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 261 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119865</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s decision and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. It was noted that the CIT(A) should have directed the Assessing Officer to conduct the inquiry due to the complexity of evidence. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>