<?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>2012 (2) TMI 121 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210502</link>
    <description>The High Court held in favor of the Revenue, ruling that the omission of &quot;Private Limited&quot; in the notices did not invalidate the reassessment proceedings as it did not cause confusion or prejudice to the assessee. The appeals were decided in favor of the Revenue, and the parties were directed to appear before the CIT(A) for the hearing of the appeals on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183936" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 121 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210502</link>
      <description>The High Court held in favor of the Revenue, ruling that the omission of &quot;Private Limited&quot; in the notices did not invalidate the reassessment proceedings as it did not cause confusion or prejudice to the assessee. The appeals were decided in favor of the Revenue, and the parties were directed to appear before the CIT(A) for the hearing of the appeals on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210502</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>