<?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 679 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220576</link>
    <description>The court quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for the year 2003-04, finding it time-barred and a mere change of opinion. The court also ruled in favor of the petitioner regarding the incorrect allowances of deductions related to royalty received from foreign enterprises, export profits, profit and gains from newly established undertakings, and non-business expenditure, stating that all material facts were fully disclosed during the original assessment. The court concluded that there was no failure to disclose material facts and that the reopening was impermissible, ultimately allowing the writ petition with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 679 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220576</link>
      <description>The court quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for the year 2003-04, finding it time-barred and a mere change of opinion. The court also ruled in favor of the petitioner regarding the incorrect allowances of deductions related to royalty received from foreign enterprises, export profits, profit and gains from newly established undertakings, and non-business expenditure, stating that all material facts were fully disclosed during the original assessment. The court concluded that there was no failure to disclose material facts and that the reopening was impermissible, ultimately allowing the writ petition with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220576</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>