https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245171 The Delhi HC held that ITAT erred in declaring ACIT's assessment order void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction. The court clarified that each assessment year requires separate jurisdictional determination under Section 124, considering residence, business place, and income class. While both Delhi AO and ITO Dimapur failed to properly examine jurisdiction annually, this procedural failure did not nullify the assessment. The assessment should have been set aside for fresh consideration rather than declared void. Regarding wealth tax jurisdiction, the court found the assessee waived objections by not challenging the AO's jurisdiction, making the assessment valid. Revenue succeeded on both issues. en-us Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 May 2025 17:44:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245171 The Delhi HC held that ITAT erred in declaring ACIT's assessment order void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction. The court clarified that each assessment year requires separate jurisdictional determination under Section 124, considering residence, business place, and income class. While both Delhi AO and ITO Dimapur failed to properly examine jurisdiction annually, this procedural failure did not nullify the assessment. The assessment should have been set aside for fresh consideration rather than declared void. Regarding wealth tax jurisdiction, the court found the assessee waived objections by not challenging the AO's jurisdiction, making the assessment valid. Revenue succeeded on both issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245171