<?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>2025 (5) TMI 333 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770061</link>
    <description>An unsigned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act was treated as invalid because it was neither digitally signed nor physically signed by the Assessing Officer, and the Department produced no material to cure or dispute the defect. The jurisdictional challenge was admitted as it went to the root of validity. As the notice was held void, the foundation for reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 148 was absent, and the reassessment proceedings could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 May 2025 09:58:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=819743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 333 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770061</link>
      <description>An unsigned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act was treated as invalid because it was neither digitally signed nor physically signed by the Assessing Officer, and the Department produced no material to cure or dispute the defect. The jurisdictional challenge was admitted as it went to the root of validity. As the notice was held void, the foundation for reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 148 was absent, and the reassessment proceedings could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770061</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>