<?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>2015 (12) TMI 1905 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458046</link>
    <description>The dispute concerned whether the reopening record matched the reasons supplied to the assessee and whether the original file contained the sanctioning endorsement relied on by the Revenue. The court found that further verification of the record was necessary before the matter could be dealt with conclusively, and the matter was adjourned for that purpose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2024 20:18:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771748" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1905 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458046</link>
      <description>The dispute concerned whether the reopening record matched the reasons supplied to the assessee and whether the original file contained the sanctioning endorsement relied on by the Revenue. The court found that further verification of the record was necessary before the matter could be dealt with conclusively, and the matter was adjourned for that purpose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>