<?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 (2) TMI 272 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786077</link>
    <description>Delay was condoned, and the special leave petitions were disposed of by applying the law laid down in the earlier judgment referred to in the order. The assessing officers were directed to act in accordance with that binding legal position, so the operative effect was that the prior ruling governed the Revenue&#039;s petitions and the assessment authorities had to follow it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2026 09:16:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=884323" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 272 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786077</link>
      <description>Delay was condoned, and the special leave petitions were disposed of by applying the law laid down in the earlier judgment referred to in the order. The assessing officers were directed to act in accordance with that binding legal position, so the operative effect was that the prior ruling governed the Revenue&#039;s petitions and the assessment authorities had to follow it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786077</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>