https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10429 HC held the Tribunal correctly set aside the Commissioner's order because the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to modify the ITO's registration order under section 158/185(1)(a). The CIT's notice proposed cancellation for an alleged error in partner share allocation but did not issue a notice under section 158 read with sections 187 and 67 to change share allocation or afford the assessee a chance to be heard. Reliance on section 292B could not sustain the Commissioner's modification. en-us Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Sep 2025 10:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10429 HC held the Tribunal correctly set aside the Commissioner's order because the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to modify the ITO's registration order under section 158/185(1)(a). The CIT's notice proposed cancellation for an alleged error in partner share allocation but did not issue a notice under section 158 read with sections 187 and 67 to change share allocation or afford the assessee a chance to be heard. Reliance on section 292B could not sustain the Commissioner's modification. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10429