<?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 324 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211606</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the respondent assessee lacked the necessary voting rights and shareholding to trigger Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The judgment favored the assessee over the Revenue, dismissing the appeals without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (3) TMI 324 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211606</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the respondent assessee lacked the necessary voting rights and shareholding to trigger Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The judgment favored the assessee over the Revenue, dismissing the appeals without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211606</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>