<?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 (10) TMI 1082 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760483</link>
    <description>The ITAT Delhi held that assessments under Section 153C for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 were invalid as they exceeded the 10-year outer ceiling limit. Following the Supreme Court decision in Jasjit Singh, the tribunal determined that the 10-year period should be computed backward from the end of the assessment year when the jurisdictional assessing officer recorded the satisfaction note (2022-23), making the contested assessment years fall beyond the statutory time limit. The appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=774827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1082 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760483</link>
      <description>The ITAT Delhi held that assessments under Section 153C for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 were invalid as they exceeded the 10-year outer ceiling limit. Following the Supreme Court decision in Jasjit Singh, the tribunal determined that the 10-year period should be computed backward from the end of the assessment year when the jurisdictional assessing officer recorded the satisfaction note (2022-23), making the contested assessment years fall beyond the statutory time limit. The appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760483</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>