<?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 (10) TMI 199 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800256</link>
    <description>Assessment validity was questioned where it was issued on a PAN allegedly neither obtained nor used by the petitioner. Material differences between two PAN records, including date of birth and addresses, left unresolved how substantially similar PANs were issued and why one was later deactivated. Original PAN application records, verification material, profile details, and deactivation records were required to be produced for further examination. No final determination was made.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2026 09:32:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=927646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (10) TMI 199 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800256</link>
      <description>Assessment validity was questioned where it was issued on a PAN allegedly neither obtained nor used by the petitioner. Material differences between two PAN records, including date of birth and addresses, left unresolved how substantially similar PANs were issued and why one was later deactivated. Original PAN application records, verification material, profile details, and deactivation records were required to be produced for further examination. No final determination was made.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>