This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
PCCIT sanction Required for Reopening Notice After 3 Years: Bombay HC
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Balkrishna Barsha Sutar Vs ITO (Bombay High Court): Writ Petition No. 6192 of 2024
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All High Courts, Bombay High Court
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Balkrishna Barsha Sutar Vs ITO (Bombay High Court)
In the case of Balkrishna Barsha Sutar vs. ITO, the petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, both dated July 20, 2022. Additionally, they contested a notice dated May 25, 2022, issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. One of the grounds raised was the invalidity of the sanction to pass the order under Section 148A(d) as it was issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax...
