<?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>2001 (2) TMI 1030 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183401</link>
    <description>Whether service of notice was valid on the facts of the case was treated as a factual issue, not a referable question of law. The Tribunal had recorded a definite finding, based on the material on record, that notice was duly served on the assessee. Because the controversy turned essentially on that factual finding and no legal infirmity in the finding was shown, the Court declined to answer the referred question and returned the reference unanswered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2016 15:33:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430913" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 1030 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183401</link>
      <description>Whether service of notice was valid on the facts of the case was treated as a factual issue, not a referable question of law. The Tribunal had recorded a definite finding, based on the material on record, that notice was duly served on the assessee. Because the controversy turned essentially on that factual finding and no legal infirmity in the finding was shown, the Court declined to answer the referred question and returned the reference unanswered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>