<?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 (8) TMI 242 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346184</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, rejecting the characterization of Sections 201(1) &amp;amp; (1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as penal. The Court held the assessee as an assessee in default, emphasizing the objective of recovering tax. The retrospective amendment by the Finance Act, 2001 was not addressed as the first question was resolved against the assessee. The Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the ITAT&#039;s order and ruling in favor of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Aug 2017 07:33:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484622" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 242 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346184</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, rejecting the characterization of Sections 201(1) &amp;amp; (1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as penal. The Court held the assessee as an assessee in default, emphasizing the objective of recovering tax. The retrospective amendment by the Finance Act, 2001 was not addressed as the first question was resolved against the assessee. The Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the ITAT&#039;s order and ruling in favor of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>