<?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 (9) TMI 10 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205590</link>
    <description>A rectification order was set aside because it was non-speaking, did not address the relevant facts, including payment or part-payment of demand, and ignored the legal contentions and authorities cited by the taxpayer. The Court declined to resolve the dispute on assumptions where the order lacked reasons and factual examination. It remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after hearing the taxpayer, and the assessee obtained relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179094" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 10 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205590</link>
      <description>A rectification order was set aside because it was non-speaking, did not address the relevant facts, including payment or part-payment of demand, and ignored the legal contentions and authorities cited by the taxpayer. The Court declined to resolve the dispute on assumptions where the order lacked reasons and factual examination. It remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after hearing the taxpayer, and the assessee obtained relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>