<?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>2014 (9) TMI 170 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251144</link>
    <description>The High Court remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to determine if a painting could be considered a personal effect based on evidence of its use by the assessee. The petitioner was given two weeks to submit additional documents, and the Assessing Officer was directed to provide a decision within three months. The previous orders were set aside for this specific issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2014 18:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=364572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 170 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251144</link>
      <description>The High Court remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to determine if a painting could be considered a personal effect based on evidence of its use by the assessee. The petitioner was given two weeks to submit additional documents, and the Assessing Officer was directed to provide a decision within three months. The previous orders were set aside for this specific issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251144</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>