Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Praveena Kumari Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court)
Related Assessment Year : 2016-17
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Praveena Kumari Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court)

Karnataka HC tells AO: “Seven days means seven days — not your version of it!”; Reassessment notice struck down for haste under 148A(b)

The Karnataka High Court quashed the reassessment notice & all consequential proceedings, holding that the notice issued u/s 148A(b) did not grant the mandatory minimum period of seven days to respond.

The Petitioner had challenged multiple proceedings, including the notice u/s 148A(b) dated 06.03.2023, the order u/s 148A(d) dated 20.03.2023, the reassessment not

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Author Bio

CA Vijayakumar Shetty qualified in 1994 and in practice since then. Founding partner of Shetty & Co. He is a graduate from St Aloysius College, Mangalore . View Full Profile

My Published Posts

ITAT Chennai Limits Bogus Purchase Addition to 10% Profit, Upheld 153C Satisfaction Revenue Records Alone Cannot Prove Agricultural Land if no Agri Use: ITAT Bangalore Routine Business Cash Deposits Not Taxable Despite No ITR Section 56(2)(vii)(b) Addition Overturned for Earlier Property Booking Revenue’s Section 68 Challenge Rejected on Evidence and Repayment View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Ads Free tax News and Updates
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
December 2025
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031