<?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 (1) TMI 1334 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192126</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal&#039;s order reducing the tax liability of the assessee, remanding the matter for re-hearing within six months. The Court instructed the Tribunal to allow the assessee to present additional evidence and determine the applicability of the peak credit theory to the case. The Court found that the Tribunal&#039;s decision lacked consideration of the specific facts and was based on a different judgment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 May 2017 13:42:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=468685" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 1334 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192126</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal&#039;s order reducing the tax liability of the assessee, remanding the matter for re-hearing within six months. The Court instructed the Tribunal to allow the assessee to present additional evidence and determine the applicability of the peak credit theory to the case. The Court found that the Tribunal&#039;s decision lacked consideration of the specific facts and was based on a different judgment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192126</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>