<?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 (12) TMI 27 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782487</link>
    <description>ITAT Delhi dismissed the revenue&#039;s challenge to the CIT(A)&#039;s order on the reckoning of six block assessment years under section 153C. Relying on binding precedents of the Delhi HC and SC, the CIT(A) had held that AY 2012-13 fell outside the permissible six-year block period for section 153C proceedings and therefore could not be validly assessed under that provision. ITAT upheld this reasoning, confirming that the additional legal ground was rightly allowed and the assessment for AY 2012-13 was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2025 08:50:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=868178" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 27 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782487</link>
      <description>ITAT Delhi dismissed the revenue&#039;s challenge to the CIT(A)&#039;s order on the reckoning of six block assessment years under section 153C. Relying on binding precedents of the Delhi HC and SC, the CIT(A) had held that AY 2012-13 fell outside the permissible six-year block period for section 153C proceedings and therefore could not be validly assessed under that provision. ITAT upheld this reasoning, confirming that the additional legal ground was rightly allowed and the assessment for AY 2012-13 was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>