<?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 (9) TMI 744 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347987</link>
    <description>The Court found the assessment order dated 30th January 2017 to be time-barred and set it aside. Consequently, the consequential notice of demand dated the same day and the penalty order dated 26th July 2017 were also invalidated. The reassessment proceedings were deemed untimely, resulting in the orders being set aside. The writ petition was allowed with no costs awarded, and the amended petition was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489291" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 744 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347987</link>
      <description>The Court found the assessment order dated 30th January 2017 to be time-barred and set it aside. Consequently, the consequential notice of demand dated the same day and the penalty order dated 26th July 2017 were also invalidated. The reassessment proceedings were deemed untimely, resulting in the orders being set aside. The writ petition was allowed with no costs awarded, and the amended petition was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347987</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>