<?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 (3) TMI 102 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211147</link>
    <description>The High Court quashed the ITSC&#039;s order admitting the application for settlement, emphasizing the need for detailed, reasoned orders addressing objections raised, particularly regarding full and true income disclosure and complexity of the case. The Court highlighted the ITSC&#039;s failure to independently examine evidence and materials, remitting the matter for a fresh order in compliance with the law. The revenue was awarded costs of Rs. 20,000/-.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (3) TMI 102 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211147</link>
      <description>The High Court quashed the ITSC&#039;s order admitting the application for settlement, emphasizing the need for detailed, reasoned orders addressing objections raised, particularly regarding full and true income disclosure and complexity of the case. The Court highlighted the ITSC&#039;s failure to independently examine evidence and materials, remitting the matter for a fresh order in compliance with the law. The revenue was awarded costs of Rs. 20,000/-.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211147</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>