<?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>2011 (8) TMI 1191 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181819</link>
    <description>The appeals challenging assessments under the Income-Tax Act were dismissed by the High Court. The Assessing Officer had made additions under section 69 for unexplained investment, but the CIT (A) deleted these additions, a decision upheld by the ITAT. The High Court upheld the decision, stating no question of law arose from the cases of joint property owners. Subsequent appeals by the Department were also dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:36:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=425144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1191 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181819</link>
      <description>The appeals challenging assessments under the Income-Tax Act were dismissed by the High Court. The Assessing Officer had made additions under section 69 for unexplained investment, but the CIT (A) deleted these additions, a decision upheld by the ITAT. The High Court upheld the decision, stating no question of law arose from the cases of joint property owners. Subsequent appeals by the Department were also dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181819</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>