<?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 1942 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286408</link>
    <description>The Tribunal extended the stay for an outstanding demand of Rs. 1,15,46,26,840 in favor of the assessee. The balance of convenience favored the assessee due to potential MAT credit eliminating the demand. Previous Tribunal decisions supported the assessee&#039;s case. The Tribunal found no fault on the assessee&#039;s part for the delay in the hearing and extended the stay for a further six months or until the passing of the order, whichever is earlier.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 05:50:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=605009" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 1942 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286408</link>
      <description>The Tribunal extended the stay for an outstanding demand of Rs. 1,15,46,26,840 in favor of the assessee. The balance of convenience favored the assessee due to potential MAT credit eliminating the demand. Previous Tribunal decisions supported the assessee&#039;s case. The Tribunal found no fault on the assessee&#039;s part for the delay in the hearing and extended the stay for a further six months or until the passing of the order, whichever is earlier.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286408</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>