<?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>2022 (8) TMI 729 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426490</link>
    <description>A scrutiny notice issued under section 143(2) to an amalgamating company that had ceased to exist after amalgamation is invalid where the Assessing Officer had prior notice of the amalgamation. The defect is jurisdictional, not a mere procedural irregularity, because a valid notice must be issued to the existing successor entity. On these facts, the notice was void and the assessment could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2022 18:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=688166" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 729 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426490</link>
      <description>A scrutiny notice issued under section 143(2) to an amalgamating company that had ceased to exist after amalgamation is invalid where the Assessing Officer had prior notice of the amalgamation. The defect is jurisdictional, not a mere procedural irregularity, because a valid notice must be issued to the existing successor entity. On these facts, the notice was void and the assessment could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426490</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>