https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65003 Where the assessee's head office and business activities were shown to be in Delhi, territorial jurisdiction vested in the New Delhi Assessing Officer under section 124(1)(a), and the section 124(2) order merely recognised that existing jurisdiction rather than requiring a fresh transfer order. Earlier assessments made at Ghaziabad were treated as without jurisdiction and therefore not protected by section 124(5); once New Delhi jurisdiction was accepted, the section 148 and 142(1) notices and the reassessment were competent, and the plea of double assessment failed. The challenge to the section 144 assessment and appellate directions on expenditure and loss claims also failed because the appellate authority had considered the claims and issued only limited verification remands. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:04:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65003 Where the assessee's head office and business activities were shown to be in Delhi, territorial jurisdiction vested in the New Delhi Assessing Officer under section 124(1)(a), and the section 124(2) order merely recognised that existing jurisdiction rather than requiring a fresh transfer order. Earlier assessments made at Ghaziabad were treated as without jurisdiction and therefore not protected by section 124(5); once New Delhi jurisdiction was accepted, the section 148 and 142(1) notices and the reassessment were competent, and the plea of double assessment failed. The challenge to the section 144 assessment and appellate directions on expenditure and loss claims also failed because the appellate authority had considered the claims and issued only limited verification remands. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65003