<?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 (11) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238840</link>
    <description>Revenue could not revive an income-tax appeal once the Committee of Disputes had refused permission and that refusal had been accepted. The later recall of the Committee of Disputes mechanism did not invalidate the earlier rejection or reopen a matter already decided with finality. The Delhi HC therefore treated the prior denial as binding and refused to permit resurrection of the appeal, leaving the Revenue without entitlement to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2013 06:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238840</link>
      <description>Revenue could not revive an income-tax appeal once the Committee of Disputes had refused permission and that refusal had been accepted. The later recall of the Committee of Disputes mechanism did not invalidate the earlier rejection or reopen a matter already decided with finality. The Delhi HC therefore treated the prior denial as binding and refused to permit resurrection of the appeal, leaving the Revenue without entitlement to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>