<?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>2024 (3) TMI 1574 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472609</link>
    <description>Failure to transcribe a Document Identification Number on an assessment order was treated prima facie as a factual issue rather than a substantial question of law, particularly because it had not been raised before appellate authorities. Asserted ownership and prior disclosure of seized cash required cogent supporting evidence. An additional affidavit was directed to substantiate the alleged owners&#039; disclosures, and the appeal was listed for further hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 13:37:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=930599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 1574 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472609</link>
      <description>Failure to transcribe a Document Identification Number on an assessment order was treated prima facie as a factual issue rather than a substantial question of law, particularly because it had not been raised before appellate authorities. Asserted ownership and prior disclosure of seized cash required cogent supporting evidence. An additional affidavit was directed to substantiate the alleged owners&#039; disclosures, and the appeal was listed for further hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472609</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>