- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Stays Reassessment Proceedings Initiated Under Income Tax Act
Delhi High Court Stays Reassessment Proceedings Initiated Under Income Tax Act The Court directed both the parties to file their written submissions while asserting that no further adjournment would be granted in the case The Delhi High Court has restrained the tax authorities from continuing with the reassessment proceedings in any manner, pursuant to the notices issued u/S 148 of the...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Delhi High Court Stays Reassessment Proceedings Initiated Under Income Tax Act
The Court directed both the parties to file their written submissions while asserting that no further adjournment would be granted in the case
The Delhi High Court has restrained the tax authorities from continuing with the reassessment proceedings in any manner, pursuant to the notices issued u/S 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Multiple petitions were placed before the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, comprising Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, regarding the notices issued u/S 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench noted that these petitions were similar to some previous petitions wherein stay was granted to the notices by contending that the notices u/S 148 of the Act were invalid in the eyes of law and void from inception as they were issued without following the process of issuance of prior notice u/S 148A of the Act. It was further argued that the Respondents – Authorities could not indirectly extend the operation of the old provisions of the Act beyond 31 March 2021.
The Respondent – Authorities had previously contended that by virtue of introduction of Section 3(1) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, the time limit for taking action u/S 148 of the Act had been extended till 30 June 2021.
The Court noted these previous petitions into account and directed both the parties to file their written submissions while making it clear that no adjournment would be granted on the next date of hearing.
The bench by relying on the previous orders of similar petitions, restrained the Respondent – Authorities from continuing with the reassessment proceedings, in any manner, pursuant to the notices issued u/S 148 of the Act.