<?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>2009 (4) TMI 1022 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276323</link>
    <description>The Delhi HC dismissed the Revenue&#039;s income-tax appeal because the proposed questions of law were already covered against it by earlier judgments of the same court involving the same assessee. Questions (A), (B) and (C) were covered by the judgment dated 14 November 2008, and questions (D) and (E) were covered by the judgment dated 30 January 2009. The court therefore followed its earlier rulings and did not reopen the issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2018 12:03:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 1022 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276323</link>
      <description>The Delhi HC dismissed the Revenue&#039;s income-tax appeal because the proposed questions of law were already covered against it by earlier judgments of the same court involving the same assessee. Questions (A), (B) and (C) were covered by the judgment dated 14 November 2008, and questions (D) and (E) were covered by the judgment dated 30 January 2009. The court therefore followed its earlier rulings and did not reopen the issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276323</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>