Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the validity of the order of reassessment. It held that sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner by serving notices physically and through email. The petitioner had responded to the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and even sought further time for filing an additional response. However, no objection was subsequently filed, and the Income Tax Officer passed appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The petitioner had provided an email address for communication and had submitted a response through that email ID. Hence, notices issued to that email ID cannot be considered irregular. The petitioner was aware of the proceedings but failed to avail the opportunity granted. The contention of unawareness of the technological mode of serving notices was rejected by the Court. The Court found no merit in the contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice.
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the validity of the order of reassessment. It held that sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner by serving notices physically and through email. The petitioner had responded to the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and even sought further time for filing an additional response. However, no objection was subsequently filed, and the Income Tax Officer passed appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The petitioner had provided an email address for communication and had submitted a response through that email ID. Hence, notices issued to that email ID cannot be considered irregular. The petitioner was aware of the proceedings but failed to avail the opportunity granted. The contention of unawareness of the technological mode of serving notices was rejected by the Court. The Court found no merit in the contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
