https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388285 The Tribunal concluded that the Initiating Officer in Mumbai lacked territorial jurisdiction to investigate and refer the matter under the PBPT Act, as the properties and entities involved were situated in Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, the actions taken by the Initiating Officer were deemed non-est in the eye of the law. The Tribunal set aside the orders due to the lack of jurisdiction and clarified that the appeals were decided solely on the issue of territorial jurisdiction, granting the Competent Initiating Officer the liberty to initiate proceedings within their jurisdiction. en-us Wed, 11 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 May 2022 16:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388285 The Tribunal concluded that the Initiating Officer in Mumbai lacked territorial jurisdiction to investigate and refer the matter under the PBPT Act, as the properties and entities involved were situated in Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, the actions taken by the Initiating Officer were deemed non-est in the eye of the law. The Tribunal set aside the orders due to the lack of jurisdiction and clarified that the appeals were decided solely on the issue of territorial jurisdiction, granting the Competent Initiating Officer the liberty to initiate proceedings within their jurisdiction. Case-Laws Benami Property Wed, 11 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388285