<?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>1973 (5) TMI 88 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150640</link>
    <description>The limitation period in section 11(2a) governed only original assessments and did not restrict the exercise of revisional power under section 20(3) in the absence of express statutory language. Where a revisional order led to a fresh assessment, the proviso created a new four-year period from the date of that order, and the subsequent assessment made within that period was valid. The challenge to the revisional and consequential assessment orders therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 16:25:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167680" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (5) TMI 88 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150640</link>
      <description>The limitation period in section 11(2a) governed only original assessments and did not restrict the exercise of revisional power under section 20(3) in the absence of express statutory language. Where a revisional order led to a fresh assessment, the proviso created a new four-year period from the date of that order, and the subsequent assessment made within that period was valid. The challenge to the revisional and consequential assessment orders therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>