https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11718 The High Court held that the service of notices at Calcutta did not confer jurisdiction upon the court, as substantive proceedings and jurisdiction lay with the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (DCIT), Mumbai. The court found that the notice under section 163(2) was valid as CESC fell within the definition of an agent. However, the notice under section 148 was deemed without jurisdiction and quashed. The court clarified that the liability of the representative assessee is limited to income from transactions with the non-resident. The writ petition was dismissed regarding the notice under section 163, and the appeal was allowed in part. en-us Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11718 The High Court held that the service of notices at Calcutta did not confer jurisdiction upon the court, as substantive proceedings and jurisdiction lay with the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (DCIT), Mumbai. The court found that the notice under section 163(2) was valid as CESC fell within the definition of an agent. However, the notice under section 148 was deemed without jurisdiction and quashed. The court clarified that the liability of the representative assessee is limited to income from transactions with the non-resident. The writ petition was dismissed regarding the notice under section 163, and the appeal was allowed in part. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11718