<?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 (9) TMI 129 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236696</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the second reassessment notice. It found that the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to issue the notice based on new material facts and that the petitioner had not made a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment. Additionally, the court imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Dec 2013 15:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 129 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236696</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the second reassessment notice. It found that the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to issue the notice based on new material facts and that the petitioner had not made a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment. Additionally, the court imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236696</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>