<?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>2011 (11) TMI 812 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274458</link>
    <description>Service of reassessment notice under Section 148 is questioned where the department used an address obtained from a bank rather than the address disclosed in the return. The central issue is whether that service satisfied the statutory requirements for valid service under Section 282 and whether reassessment proceedings may continue without proper service. Notice was issued and operation of the impugned order was stayed pending further orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2018 17:48:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=530928" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 812 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274458</link>
      <description>Service of reassessment notice under Section 148 is questioned where the department used an address obtained from a bank rather than the address disclosed in the return. The central issue is whether that service satisfied the statutory requirements for valid service under Section 282 and whether reassessment proceedings may continue without proper service. Notice was issued and operation of the impugned order was stayed pending further orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>