<?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>2015 (3) TMI 845 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257911</link>
    <description>The High Court remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a specific finding on whether the transactions were indeed reflected in subsequent returns as claimed by the assessee. The Court emphasized the need for consistency in tax treatment and avoidance of double taxation. The appeal was allowed under these terms, with the rights of the parties expressly reserved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=379624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 845 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257911</link>
      <description>The High Court remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a specific finding on whether the transactions were indeed reflected in subsequent returns as claimed by the assessee. The Court emphasized the need for consistency in tax treatment and avoidance of double taxation. The appeal was allowed under these terms, with the rights of the parties expressly reserved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>