<?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>2013 (1) TMI 546 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220441</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were illegal and void. The income received was classified as &quot;long term capital gains&quot; rather than &quot;income from other sources.&quot; The Assessing Officer&#039;s order was deemed invalid, and the Commissioner&#039;s rejection of the petitioner&#039;s application under Section 264 was unjustified. The court quashed the reassessment proceedings, allowing the petition without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193807" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 546 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220441</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were illegal and void. The income received was classified as &quot;long term capital gains&quot; rather than &quot;income from other sources.&quot; The Assessing Officer&#039;s order was deemed invalid, and the Commissioner&#039;s rejection of the petitioner&#039;s application under Section 264 was unjustified. The court quashed the reassessment proceedings, allowing the petition without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220441</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>