<?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>2017 (5) TMI 1108 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343370</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of factual analysis and external evidence in interpreting Section 50(C) of the Income Tax Act. It noted that strict application of the provision could lead to hardship in cases where transactions occur over time, especially with revised circle rates. The Court highlighted the significance of considering specific circumstances to avoid undue burden on taxpayers and recognized legislative amendments addressing such concerns.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 May 2017 16:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=469597" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1108 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343370</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of factual analysis and external evidence in interpreting Section 50(C) of the Income Tax Act. It noted that strict application of the provision could lead to hardship in cases where transactions occur over time, especially with revised circle rates. The Court highlighted the significance of considering specific circumstances to avoid undue burden on taxpayers and recognized legislative amendments addressing such concerns.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343370</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>