<?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>1983 (11) TMI 156 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67860</link>
    <description>A reassessment notice under section 148 is invalid where the Assessing Officer has not recorded reasons before issuing it, because recording reasons is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement under section 148(2). The document states that, since no recorded reasons were available on the assessment record or furnished to the assessee, the assumption of reassessment jurisdiction could not be sustained. On that basis, the notice was treated as without jurisdiction and bad in law, and the reassessment addition was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:59:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=106295" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (11) TMI 156 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67860</link>
      <description>A reassessment notice under section 148 is invalid where the Assessing Officer has not recorded reasons before issuing it, because recording reasons is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement under section 148(2). The document states that, since no recorded reasons were available on the assessment record or furnished to the assessee, the assumption of reassessment jurisdiction could not be sustained. On that basis, the notice was treated as without jurisdiction and bad in law, and the reassessment addition was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67860</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>