<?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 287 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800344</link>
    <description>Limitation for a notice under Section 153C depended on the six-year look-back period applicable where alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakh. Because the satisfaction note was recorded in assessment year 2023-24, the period reached back only to assessment year 2017-18. Assessment year 2016-17 therefore fell outside the prescribed period, rendering the notice time-barred in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:13:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=927844" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (10) TMI 287 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800344</link>
      <description>Limitation for a notice under Section 153C depended on the six-year look-back period applicable where alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakh. Because the satisfaction note was recorded in assessment year 2023-24, the period reached back only to assessment year 2017-18. Assessment year 2016-17 therefore fell outside the prescribed period, rendering the notice time-barred in favour of the assessee.</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=800344</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>