<?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 (3) TMI 1090 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297831</link>
    <description>A finding on the same benami controversy, once it had attained finality for earlier assessment years and the facts remained unchanged, was treated as binding for the subsequent years, so the Tribunal was justified in not reopening the issue. ESI and provident fund contributions deposited within the extended permissible period were also treated as deductible on the facts presented. On both grounds, the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed and the assessee&#039;s position was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2021 16:37:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=656693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 1090 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297831</link>
      <description>A finding on the same benami controversy, once it had attained finality for earlier assessment years and the facts remained unchanged, was treated as binding for the subsequent years, so the Tribunal was justified in not reopening the issue. ESI and provident fund contributions deposited within the extended permissible period were also treated as deductible on the facts presented. On both grounds, the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed and the assessee&#039;s position was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297831</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>