<?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>2010 (8) TMI 1156 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300999</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the appeals under section 260A of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2004-2005. The respondent-assessee, a partnership firm in the garment business, had appealed against the Assessing Officer&#039;s determination of taxable income at a higher amount. The ITAT partially allowed the appeal by deleting certain additions to the income, which the Court found well-founded. The Court agreed with the ITAT&#039;s decision, stating that no substantial legal question arose from the quantum appeal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and no penalty was imposed due to the lack of merit in the quantum appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2022 13:25:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=672193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 1156 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300999</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the appeals under section 260A of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2004-2005. The respondent-assessee, a partnership firm in the garment business, had appealed against the Assessing Officer&#039;s determination of taxable income at a higher amount. The ITAT partially allowed the appeal by deleting certain additions to the income, which the Court found well-founded. The Court agreed with the ITAT&#039;s decision, stating that no substantial legal question arose from the quantum appeal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and no penalty was imposed due to the lack of merit in the quantum appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300999</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>