<?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>2026 (1) TMI 558 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784802</link>
    <description>Valuation of shares, if required for reopening of assessment, had to be undertaken under section 56(2)(vii)(c) read with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, as noted in the Delhi HC decision cited in the text. The Supreme Court did not examine that issue on merits because the Special Leave Petition was filed with a delay of 141 days and no plausible, bona fide explanation was shown to condone the inordinate delay; the petition was dismissed on that ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=877559" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 558 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784802</link>
      <description>Valuation of shares, if required for reopening of assessment, had to be undertaken under section 56(2)(vii)(c) read with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, as noted in the Delhi HC decision cited in the text. The Supreme Court did not examine that issue on merits because the Special Leave Petition was filed with a delay of 141 days and no plausible, bona fide explanation was shown to condone the inordinate delay; the petition was dismissed on that ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784802</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>