<?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 (11) TMI 2001 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468988</link>
    <description>In an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, the Delhi HC held that no substantial question of law arose because the issue had already been decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee in an earlier year involving the same assessee. Applying parity of reasons with that prior decision, the Court found the present challenge covered and dismissed the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 20:06:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904106" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 2001 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468988</link>
      <description>In an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, the Delhi HC held that no substantial question of law arose because the issue had already been decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee in an earlier year involving the same assessee. Applying parity of reasons with that prior decision, the Court found the present challenge covered and dismissed the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468988</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>