<?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 (3) TMI 114 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272302</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the validity of the notice under Section 143(2) and the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer. However, the assessment order by the Additional Commissioner was deemed void due to lack of jurisdiction. The issues regarding the disallowance of business loss and deduction of property tax, which were not pressed by the assessee, were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:07:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=418939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 114 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272302</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the validity of the notice under Section 143(2) and the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer. However, the assessment order by the Additional Commissioner was deemed void due to lack of jurisdiction. The issues regarding the disallowance of business loss and deduction of property tax, which were not pressed by the assessee, were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272302</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>