<?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 (3) TMI 478 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356775</link>
    <description>Where the Gift Tax Act prescribed a mandatory time limit for issuing notice, that limit governed reassessment proceedings as well, and reassessment could not be sustained outside the statutory period. The absence of effective service of notice meant the authority never validly assumed jurisdiction, and a remand direction could not authorise action beyond law. An assessment made without valid notice and after expiry of the prescribed time was therefore void.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 11:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 478 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356775</link>
      <description>Where the Gift Tax Act prescribed a mandatory time limit for issuing notice, that limit governed reassessment proceedings as well, and reassessment could not be sustained outside the statutory period. The absence of effective service of notice meant the authority never validly assumed jurisdiction, and a remand direction could not authorise action beyond law. An assessment made without valid notice and after expiry of the prescribed time was therefore void.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356775</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>