Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
