<?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>2022 (5) TMI 1435 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303858</link>
    <description>The Court quashed the order issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent notice under Section 148 due to inadequate time granted for the petitioner to respond, violating the statutory seven-day period. The respondent was given liberty to proceed lawfully, while the petitioner retained the right to seek remedies as per the law. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=688247" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 1435 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303858</link>
      <description>The Court quashed the order issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent notice under Section 148 due to inadequate time granted for the petitioner to respond, violating the statutory seven-day period. The respondent was given liberty to proceed lawfully, while the petitioner retained the right to seek remedies as per the law. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303858</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>