<?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>2026 (4) TMI 639 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789570</link>
    <description>Unsigned statutory notice under section 148 was treated as lacking legal validity, and the consequential reopening was regarded as suffering from a jurisdictional defect. The notice under section 143(2) was also found invalid because it referred to a blank annexure, making the notice ambiguous and vague enough to vitiate the assessment proceedings. On that basis, the reassessment and the resulting assessment were quashed on jurisdictional grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:00:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896071" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 639 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789570</link>
      <description>Unsigned statutory notice under section 148 was treated as lacking legal validity, and the consequential reopening was regarded as suffering from a jurisdictional defect. The notice under section 143(2) was also found invalid because it referred to a blank annexure, making the notice ambiguous and vague enough to vitiate the assessment proceedings. On that basis, the reassessment and the resulting assessment were quashed on jurisdictional grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>