<?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>2024 (2) TMI 929 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449778</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed a petition challenging reassessment proceedings under sections 147 and 144. The petitioner failed to file return after receiving notice under section 148 and did not request reasons for reopening within prescribed time. The court held that without filing return or treating original return as response to section 148 notice, the petitioner could not challenge proceedings on grounds of non-provision of reasons for reopening. The assessment was completed on best judgment basis due to non-compliance. The court found no prejudice in denial of cross-examination opportunity and noted adequate opportunity was provided to submit evidence of civil work execution, which petitioner failed to utilize effectively.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Aug 2024 11:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=744185" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 929 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449778</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed a petition challenging reassessment proceedings under sections 147 and 144. The petitioner failed to file return after receiving notice under section 148 and did not request reasons for reopening within prescribed time. The court held that without filing return or treating original return as response to section 148 notice, the petitioner could not challenge proceedings on grounds of non-provision of reasons for reopening. The assessment was completed on best judgment basis due to non-compliance. The court found no prejudice in denial of cross-examination opportunity and noted adequate opportunity was provided to submit evidence of civil work execution, which petitioner failed to utilize effectively.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>