<?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 (1) TMI 1528 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198366</link>
    <description>The Court quashed the reassessment notice under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2008-09, ruling in favor of the petitioner. The Court found that the Revenue lacked tangible material to support the reassessment and that the petitioner&#039;s interpretation of the law allowing the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation from past assessments was valid. The Court held that the amendment to Section 32(2) removed the previous restriction on carrying forward depreciation beyond eight years, rendering the reassessment notice invalid. All related proceedings were annulled, and the Revenue&#039;s argument of non-application of mind was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 08:26:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506532" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1528 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198366</link>
      <description>The Court quashed the reassessment notice under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2008-09, ruling in favor of the petitioner. The Court found that the Revenue lacked tangible material to support the reassessment and that the petitioner&#039;s interpretation of the law allowing the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation from past assessments was valid. The Court held that the amendment to Section 32(2) removed the previous restriction on carrying forward depreciation beyond eight years, rendering the reassessment notice invalid. All related proceedings were annulled, and the Revenue&#039;s argument of non-application of mind was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198366</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>