<?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>2018 (1) TMI 904 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354168</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the appeal, determining that the liability for interest on overdue deposits was ascertained and crystallized, making the provision made by the assessee acceptable. The Court found the Tribunal&#039;s decision to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer incorrect, answering the legal questions in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2018 15:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 904 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354168</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the appeal, determining that the liability for interest on overdue deposits was ascertained and crystallized, making the provision made by the assessee acceptable. The Court found the Tribunal&#039;s decision to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer incorrect, answering the legal questions in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>