<?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 (4) TMI 1572 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274295</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax&#039;s exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, directing the Assessing Officer to conduct a detailed analysis to determine the nature of the subsidy received by the assessee. The Court emphasized the importance of providing reasons for decisions and the necessity for independent assessments in complex tax matters, allowing the appeal for a fresh order based on independent analysis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Aug 2018 20:29:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=529641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1572 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274295</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax&#039;s exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, directing the Assessing Officer to conduct a detailed analysis to determine the nature of the subsidy received by the assessee. The Court emphasized the importance of providing reasons for decisions and the necessity for independent assessments in complex tax matters, allowing the appeal for a fresh order based on independent analysis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>