<?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 (8) TMI 102 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235807</link>
    <description>The court set aside the Assessing Officer&#039;s order and notice, directing the refund of the amount recovered from respondent No. 2 bank. It concluded that the escrow amount was not held on account of the assessee company, and the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to appropriate the funds under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The parties were left to bear their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2013 12:46:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 102 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235807</link>
      <description>The court set aside the Assessing Officer&#039;s order and notice, directing the refund of the amount recovered from respondent No. 2 bank. It concluded that the escrow amount was not held on account of the assessee company, and the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to appropriate the funds under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The parties were left to bear their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>