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.
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 notice u/s 148, the reassessment order u/s 147...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.

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

Patna ITAT: Interest on Delayed Payment of Sales Tax, Service Tax & Employer’s PF Contribution Allowable; TDS Interest Not Deductible Section 54F Deduction Allowed on Genuine House Purchase from In-Laws: Mumbai ITAT Pune ITAT Quashes Reassessment as Section 148A(b) & 148A(d) Reasons Differed Section 54 Relief Can’t Be Denied Merely Due to Section 50C Addition: Pune ITAT Delhi ITAT Deletes Penny Stock Addition; Suspicion Can’t Replace Evidence 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Your email address will not be published.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 *

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031