<?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 (8) TMI 1198 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797324</link>
    <description>Special leave petition challenging an assessment under search-related provisions and an addition for unexplained credits was dismissed after a 902-day filing delay. The reasons for condonation were held insufficient. The issues were also treated as governed by the Supreme Court&#039;s earlier Abhisar Buildwell principle, leading to dismissal on merits. The filing was criticised as unnecessary because the Department itself accepted that the dispute was already covered by binding precedent, thereby adding to judicial pendency.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2026 08:14:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=917932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 1198 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797324</link>
      <description>Special leave petition challenging an assessment under search-related provisions and an addition for unexplained credits was dismissed after a 902-day filing delay. The reasons for condonation were held insufficient. The issues were also treated as governed by the Supreme Court&#039;s earlier Abhisar Buildwell principle, leading to dismissal on merits. The filing was criticised as unnecessary because the Department itself accepted that the dispute was already covered by binding precedent, thereby adding to judicial pendency.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>