<?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>2007 (4) TMI 44 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1648</link>
    <description>HC held notice under s.148 was not validly served where delivery was attempted during a holiday and only a security guard-who was not the assessee&#039;s agent-was present; the notice was neither tendered to nor refused by the assessee or any agent, no effort was made to locate the assessee, and the registered post was not sent with acknowledgment due. Consequently the re-assessment proceedings and resultant order were held bad in law and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 10:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 44 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1648</link>
      <description>HC held notice under s.148 was not validly served where delivery was attempted during a holiday and only a security guard-who was not the assessee&#039;s agent-was present; the notice was neither tendered to nor refused by the assessee or any agent, no effort was made to locate the assessee, and the registered post was not sent with acknowledgment due. Consequently the re-assessment proceedings and resultant order were held bad in law and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1648</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>