<?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 1041 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348284</link>
    <description>The court held that the notice under Section 263 did not provide the Assessee with a full opportunity to be heard as required by law. Consequently, the order dated 30th March 2013 was deemed unsustainable. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and both the notice dated 18th March 2013 and the order dated 30th March 2013 were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:23:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489889" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1041 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348284</link>
      <description>The court held that the notice under Section 263 did not provide the Assessee with a full opportunity to be heard as required by law. Consequently, the order dated 30th March 2013 was deemed unsustainable. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and both the notice dated 18th March 2013 and the order dated 30th March 2013 were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348284</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>