https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328107 Revision under section 263 failed because the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction on the relevant date. The assessment order under section 143(3) had been passed before the jurisdictional notification took effect on 15.11.2014, so the later jurisdictional change could not validate the revisional action. Objections based on the assessee's participation in later proceedings and section 292BB were rejected because they did not cure the foundational absence of jurisdiction for the earlier revision order. The revisional order was quashed and the assessment order was restored. en-us Fri, 22 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 May 2016 08:18:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328107 Revision under section 263 failed because the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction on the relevant date. The assessment order under section 143(3) had been passed before the jurisdictional notification took effect on 15.11.2014, so the later jurisdictional change could not validate the revisional action. Objections based on the assessee's participation in later proceedings and section 292BB were rejected because they did not cure the foundational absence of jurisdiction for the earlier revision order. The revisional order was quashed and the assessment order was restored. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 22 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328107