<?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>2025 (5) TMI 285 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770013</link>
    <description>The HC quashed reassessment notices under Section 148 for AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17, finding the Assessing Officer lacked tangible evidence to believe the petitioner&#039;s income had escaped assessment. The court determined no valid Permanent Establishment existed in India and procedural requirements were not met, thereby invalidating the reassessment proceedings based on survey findings of a related entity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 May 2025 08:37:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=819454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 285 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770013</link>
      <description>The HC quashed reassessment notices under Section 148 for AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17, finding the Assessing Officer lacked tangible evidence to believe the petitioner&#039;s income had escaped assessment. The court determined no valid Permanent Establishment existed in India and procedural requirements were not met, thereby invalidating the reassessment proceedings based on survey findings of a related entity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770013</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>