<?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 (9) TMI 154 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366418</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Income Tax Settlement Commission&#039;s decision that the petitioner did not make a full and true disclosure of undisclosed income, including beneficial ownership of foreign bank accounts and a London property. The Court found the ITSC&#039;s decision well-founded, based on substantial evidence from foreign authorities. The petitioner&#039;s arguments were dismissed, and the petition was rejected, with each party bearing their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 18:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=533104" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 154 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366418</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Income Tax Settlement Commission&#039;s decision that the petitioner did not make a full and true disclosure of undisclosed income, including beneficial ownership of foreign bank accounts and a London property. The Court found the ITSC&#039;s decision well-founded, based on substantial evidence from foreign authorities. The petitioner&#039;s arguments were dismissed, and the petition was rejected, with each party bearing their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366418</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>