<?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>2017 (10) TMI 48 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348893</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the assessment order dated 24-12-2014 was null and void due to lack of jurisdiction, as the Assessing Officer in Mumbai had no authority to pass the order after jurisdiction was transferred to Pune on 19-12-2014. The appeal of the assessee was allowed solely on the ground of jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of proper jurisdiction in assessment orders&#039; validity and clarified that the effective date of jurisdiction transfer is the date of the order by the competent authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 06:33:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 48 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348893</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the assessment order dated 24-12-2014 was null and void due to lack of jurisdiction, as the Assessing Officer in Mumbai had no authority to pass the order after jurisdiction was transferred to Pune on 19-12-2014. The appeal of the assessee was allowed solely on the ground of jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of proper jurisdiction in assessment orders&#039; validity and clarified that the effective date of jurisdiction transfer is the date of the order by the competent authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348893</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>