<?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 (6) TMI 1515 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464575</link>
    <description>A notice under section 148-A(b) of the Income-tax Act must grant at least seven days to respond; a five-day notice breached the mandatory statutory minimum and prejudiced the assessee, so the foundational notice was invalid. As that notice was the basis for the later action, the consequential order under section 148-A(d), notice under section 148, reassessment order, and penalty proceedings were unsustainable and were set aside by the HC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2025 20:06:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=862283" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 1515 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464575</link>
      <description>A notice under section 148-A(b) of the Income-tax Act must grant at least seven days to respond; a five-day notice breached the mandatory statutory minimum and prejudiced the assessee, so the foundational notice was invalid. As that notice was the basis for the later action, the consequential order under section 148-A(d), notice under section 148, reassessment order, and penalty proceedings were unsustainable and were set aside by the HC.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464575</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>