<?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 (8) TMI 322 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33644</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the notice under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act was not validly served on the assessee. It was found that the notice was not received by an authorized person and was sent to an incorrect address. The court emphasized the necessity of proper service and correct addressing in legal notices, placing the burden of proof on the party alleging valid service. The appeal was rejected as no substantial question of law was identified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2016 18:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72273" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 322 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33644</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the notice under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act was not validly served on the assessee. It was found that the notice was not received by an authorized person and was sent to an incorrect address. The court emphasized the necessity of proper service and correct addressing in legal notices, placing the burden of proof on the party alleging valid service. The appeal was rejected as no substantial question of law was identified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33644</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>