<?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 (5) TMI 417 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233832</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision that the reassessment was invalid as no additions were made based on the reasons for reopening. The Court ruled that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to add income, including Arm&#039;s Length Price adjustments, as the original reasons for reassessment were not substantiated. The appeal was dismissed in favor of the assessee, with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196246" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 417 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233832</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision that the reassessment was invalid as no additions were made based on the reasons for reopening. The Court ruled that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to add income, including Arm&#039;s Length Price adjustments, as the original reasons for reassessment were not substantiated. The appeal was dismissed in favor of the assessee, with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233832</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>