<?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>2011 (6) TMI 188 - ITAT, DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205267</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee, quashing the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act for lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary enquiries, and even if they were inadequate, it did not warrant action under section 263. The Tribunal cited the case law of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. to support its conclusion that the order lacked jurisdiction and should be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178784" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 188 - ITAT, DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205267</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee, quashing the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act for lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary enquiries, and even if they were inadequate, it did not warrant action under section 263. The Tribunal cited the case law of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. to support its conclusion that the order lacked jurisdiction and should be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>