Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
