<?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 (11) TMI 574 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781106</link>
    <description>HC held that a reopening notice under section 148 issued without the issuing authority&#039;s signature is invalid and cannot be cured by section 282A. The court found s148 to be a jurisdictional notice requiring a signature, and s282A does not dispense with that requirement. The AO proceeded to complete assessment despite the taxpayer&#039;s prompt objection; the Tribunal rightly invalidated the assessment order. The appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2025 08:20:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=863607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 574 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781106</link>
      <description>HC held that a reopening notice under section 148 issued without the issuing authority&#039;s signature is invalid and cannot be cured by section 282A. The court found s148 to be a jurisdictional notice requiring a signature, and s282A does not dispense with that requirement. The AO proceeded to complete assessment despite the taxpayer&#039;s prompt objection; the Tribunal rightly invalidated the assessment order. The appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781106</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>