<?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 1419 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468694</link>
    <description>Non-adjudication of the assessee&#039;s additional grounds challenging the validity of a section 148 notice constituted a mistake apparent from the record, because the earlier order had proceeded on a different issue without deciding the grounds actually argued. On that basis, rectification under section 254(2) was treated as maintainable, and the prior order was liable to be recalled for fresh consideration of Additional Grounds No. 2 and 3.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 17 May 2026 09:19:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=902426" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 1419 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468694</link>
      <description>Non-adjudication of the assessee&#039;s additional grounds challenging the validity of a section 148 notice constituted a mistake apparent from the record, because the earlier order had proceeded on a different issue without deciding the grounds actually argued. On that basis, rectification under section 254(2) was treated as maintainable, and the prior order was liable to be recalled for fresh consideration of Additional Grounds No. 2 and 3.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468694</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>