<?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>2023 (11) TMI 1442 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468564</link>
    <description>A reassessment notice was held invalid because it bore neither manual signature nor digital signature, contrary to the statutory framework governing issuance and authentication of income-tax notices. The absence of a valid signature was treated as non-compliance with a mandatory requirement, not a mere technical defect, and the notice therefore lacked legal validity. As a result, the consequential reassessment proceedings could not survive and were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 13:07:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=901701" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 1442 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468564</link>
      <description>A reassessment notice was held invalid because it bore neither manual signature nor digital signature, contrary to the statutory framework governing issuance and authentication of income-tax notices. The absence of a valid signature was treated as non-compliance with a mandatory requirement, not a mere technical defect, and the notice therefore lacked legal validity. As a result, the consequential reassessment proceedings could not survive and were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>