<?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 (3) TMI 9 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221242</link>
    <description>The court upheld the validity of notices issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and allowed the reopening of assessments due to the petitioner&#039;s failure to disclose the primary fact, the licence agreement, during the original assessments. The court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing that the reopening was justified based on non-disclosure of essential facts rather than a mere change of opinion. All interim orders were vacated, and no costs were awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194598" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 9 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221242</link>
      <description>The court upheld the validity of notices issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and allowed the reopening of assessments due to the petitioner&#039;s failure to disclose the primary fact, the licence agreement, during the original assessments. The court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing that the reopening was justified based on non-disclosure of essential facts rather than a mere change of opinion. All interim orders were vacated, and no costs were awarded.</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=221242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>