<?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 (9) TMI 1548 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799522</link>
    <description>Protection against adverse action for failure to deduct tax at source from annual lease rent cannot be denied solely because a similarly situated assessee was not a party to earlier connected litigation. GNOIDA was treated as falling outside the expression &quot;Government&quot;, requiring tax deduction from annual lease rent for the relevant assessment period; however, all similarly situated assessees were entitled to an opportunity of hearing. As the respondent had received no such hearing and the Authority&#039;s position was uniformly applicable, protection from adverse action remained available. Likely finalisation of GNOIDA&#039;s assessment also supported non-interference with the concurrent orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2026 08:48:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=925228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 1548 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799522</link>
      <description>Protection against adverse action for failure to deduct tax at source from annual lease rent cannot be denied solely because a similarly situated assessee was not a party to earlier connected litigation. GNOIDA was treated as falling outside the expression &quot;Government&quot;, requiring tax deduction from annual lease rent for the relevant assessment period; however, all similarly situated assessees were entitled to an opportunity of hearing. As the respondent had received no such hearing and the Authority&#039;s position was uniformly applicable, protection from adverse action remained available. Likely finalisation of GNOIDA&#039;s assessment also supported non-interference with the concurrent orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799522</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>