<?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>2000 (5) TMI 171 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64540</link>
    <description>In block assessment proceedings under ss. 158BA/158BC, the dominant issue was whether jurisdiction could be assailed by challenging the validity of a search under s. 132. The Tribunal held that the AO&#039;s jurisdiction depends only on whether a search was initiated in the assessee&#039;s case; neither the AO nor the Tribunal has statutory power in assessment/appeal to adjudicate the legality of the search authorisation, which can be questioned only in writ before the HC. On examining the search warrant and authorisation records, it found the warrant properly named the assessee and was supported by recorded grounds, negating the plea of mistaken identity; accordingly, jurisdiction under ss. 158BA/158BC was upheld and the dispute was directed to be decided on merits of additions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2026 12:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102981" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 171 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64540</link>
      <description>In block assessment proceedings under ss. 158BA/158BC, the dominant issue was whether jurisdiction could be assailed by challenging the validity of a search under s. 132. The Tribunal held that the AO&#039;s jurisdiction depends only on whether a search was initiated in the assessee&#039;s case; neither the AO nor the Tribunal has statutory power in assessment/appeal to adjudicate the legality of the search authorisation, which can be questioned only in writ before the HC. On examining the search warrant and authorisation records, it found the warrant properly named the assessee and was supported by recorded grounds, negating the plea of mistaken identity; accordingly, jurisdiction under ss. 158BA/158BC was upheld and the dispute was directed to be decided on merits of additions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64540</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>