<?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>2024 (7) TMI 638 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755418</link>
    <description>ITAT Delhi held that for assessment under section 153C, the search date for non-searched persons is the date when the jurisdictional AO records satisfaction regarding materials pertaining to them, not the actual search date. Following SC precedent in CIT v. Jasjit Singh and Delhi HC in Ojjus Medicare, the tribunal determined that AY 2004-05 fell beyond the six-year period from the satisfaction recording date of 23.11.2010. The assessment order was quashed for lack of jurisdiction as it exceeded the statutory time limit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:36:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=759835" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 638 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755418</link>
      <description>ITAT Delhi held that for assessment under section 153C, the search date for non-searched persons is the date when the jurisdictional AO records satisfaction regarding materials pertaining to them, not the actual search date. Following SC precedent in CIT v. Jasjit Singh and Delhi HC in Ojjus Medicare, the tribunal determined that AY 2004-05 fell beyond the six-year period from the satisfaction recording date of 23.11.2010. The assessment order was quashed for lack of jurisdiction as it exceeded the statutory time limit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755418</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>