<?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>2016 (1) TMI 256 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270464</link>
    <description>The court held that the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) does not have the power to direct a special audit under section 142(2A) during settlement proceedings as its jurisdiction is limited to settling cases and not conducting assessments or special audits. The court quashed the order directing the special audit and remitted the matter to the ITSC for further consideration of the settlement applications. The writ petition was allowed, with parties bearing their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 May 2016 11:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412223" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 256 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270464</link>
      <description>The court held that the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) does not have the power to direct a special audit under section 142(2A) during settlement proceedings as its jurisdiction is limited to settling cases and not conducting assessments or special audits. The court quashed the order directing the special audit and remitted the matter to the ITSC for further consideration of the settlement applications. The writ petition was allowed, with parties bearing their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270464</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>