<?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>1990 (5) TMI 5 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22388</link>
    <description>In a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, the Delhi HC held that it may reframe a referred question to bring out its full scope and effect. The Court treated the existing question as wide enough to cover the substance of the Department&#039;s proposed addition and found no prejudice in doing so. The ruling confirms that, where necessary, the reference court can clarify the formulation of the question so that the real controversy is properly addressed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:14:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (5) TMI 5 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22388</link>
      <description>In a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, the Delhi HC held that it may reframe a referred question to bring out its full scope and effect. The Court treated the existing question as wide enough to cover the substance of the Department&#039;s proposed addition and found no prejudice in doing so. The ruling confirms that, where necessary, the reference court can clarify the formulation of the question so that the real controversy is properly addressed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22388</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>