<?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>1987 (4) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5229</link>
    <description>SC held that issuance of a reassessment notice within the limitation period vests jurisdiction in the Income-tax Officer even if actual service occurs later; service is a condition precedent to making the assessment order, not to conferring jurisdiction. The HC&#039;s contrary decision was vacated and the appeal allowed. The Income-tax Officer is directed to complete reassessment after complying with statutory requirements. No costs were awarded due to absence of respondent appearance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 18:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44312" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (4) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5229</link>
      <description>SC held that issuance of a reassessment notice within the limitation period vests jurisdiction in the Income-tax Officer even if actual service occurs later; service is a condition precedent to making the assessment order, not to conferring jurisdiction. The HC&#039;s contrary decision was vacated and the appeal allowed. The Income-tax Officer is directed to complete reassessment after complying with statutory requirements. No costs were awarded due to absence of respondent appearance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>