<?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>2002 (4) TMI 247 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70807</link>
    <description>A reference to the Valuation Officer under section 131(1)(a) is valid only when a proceeding is pending and the Assessing Officer has formed a reasoned satisfaction that such a reference is necessary. Because the returns had only been processed under section 143(1)(a), no notice under section 143(2) had been issued, and no such satisfaction was recorded, the reference was without jurisdiction. Reassessment under section 147, being founded solely on the valuation report obtained through that invalid reference, lacked a lawful basis and could not be sustained. The additions made in reassessment therefore could not stand, while the merits of the quantum additions remained undecided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 247 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70807</link>
      <description>A reference to the Valuation Officer under section 131(1)(a) is valid only when a proceeding is pending and the Assessing Officer has formed a reasoned satisfaction that such a reference is necessary. Because the returns had only been processed under section 143(1)(a), no notice under section 143(2) had been issued, and no such satisfaction was recorded, the reference was without jurisdiction. Reassessment under section 147, being founded solely on the valuation report obtained through that invalid reference, lacked a lawful basis and could not be sustained. The additions made in reassessment therefore could not stand, while the merits of the quantum additions remained undecided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>