<?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 (12) TMI 377 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219362</link>
    <description>The article addresses whether amounts deleted by an appellate order that the Revenue did not challenge can be reintroduced in fresh assessments on remand. It applies the principle that deletions accepted by the Department and not appealed attain finality, and that a limited remand to the Assessing Officer does not permit reopening settled items absent new evidence or a successful departmental appeal; accordingly such reintroduction in fresh assessments is impermissible and the appellate deletions remain binding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192732" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 377 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219362</link>
      <description>The article addresses whether amounts deleted by an appellate order that the Revenue did not challenge can be reintroduced in fresh assessments on remand. It applies the principle that deletions accepted by the Department and not appealed attain finality, and that a limited remand to the Assessing Officer does not permit reopening settled items absent new evidence or a successful departmental appeal; accordingly such reintroduction in fresh assessments is impermissible and the appellate deletions remain binding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219362</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>