<?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 (6) TMI 37 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213717</link>
    <description>The High Court quashed the re-assessment notice dated 30.3.2009 and the subsequent order dismissing objections, ruling that the notice was barred by time under the amended Section 149 of the Income Tax Act. The court emphasized that procedural laws, including the law of limitation, apply retrospectively unless they affect vested rights, thus supporting the petitioner&#039;s contention. The respondent was also directed to pay costs to the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jun 2012 12:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 37 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213717</link>
      <description>The High Court quashed the re-assessment notice dated 30.3.2009 and the subsequent order dismissing objections, ruling that the notice was barred by time under the amended Section 149 of the Income Tax Act. The court emphasized that procedural laws, including the law of limitation, apply retrospectively unless they affect vested rights, thus supporting the petitioner&#039;s contention. The respondent was also directed to pay costs to the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>