<?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 (5) TMI 608 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210161</link>
    <description>The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order and notice. The reassessment proceedings were set aside due to lack of jurisdiction, as there was no failure to disclose material facts and the initiation was based on a change of opinion. Legal precedents emphasizing full disclosure of primary facts supported the decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183597" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 608 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210161</link>
      <description>The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order and notice. The reassessment proceedings were set aside due to lack of jurisdiction, as there was no failure to disclose material facts and the initiation was based on a change of opinion. Legal precedents emphasizing full disclosure of primary facts supported the decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210161</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>