<?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 (6) TMI 414 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772301</link>
    <description>The SC upheld the ITAT&#039;s decision that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment due to limitation period expiry. The court deferred the question of retrospective applicability of the 2012 amendment to Section 149 to a larger bench, noting conflicting judicial interpretations about extending reassessment proceedings from 6 to 16 years. The appeal was directed to be heard with connected matters raising similar legal issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2025 08:30:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=827085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 414 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772301</link>
      <description>The SC upheld the ITAT&#039;s decision that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment due to limitation period expiry. The court deferred the question of retrospective applicability of the 2012 amendment to Section 149 to a larger bench, noting conflicting judicial interpretations about extending reassessment proceedings from 6 to 16 years. The appeal was directed to be heard with connected matters raising similar legal issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>