https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750622 The ITAT Mumbai held that a reopening notice u/s 148 issued by an ITO lacked jurisdiction over a corporate assessee resident in Mumbai with filed returns exceeding Rs. 30 lacs. Per Instruction No. 1 of 2011, such cases fall under the jurisdiction of Dy. Commissioner or Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax only. Following the Bombay HC precedent in Ashok Devi Chand Jain, the tribunal ruled that s. 148 notices are jurisdictional and defects therein are incurable. The appeal was decided in favor of the assessee. en-us Thu, 21 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750622 The ITAT Mumbai held that a reopening notice u/s 148 issued by an ITO lacked jurisdiction over a corporate assessee resident in Mumbai with filed returns exceeding Rs. 30 lacs. Per Instruction No. 1 of 2011, such cases fall under the jurisdiction of Dy. Commissioner or Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax only. Following the Bombay HC precedent in Ashok Devi Chand Jain, the tribunal ruled that s. 148 notices are jurisdictional and defects therein are incurable. The appeal was decided in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 21 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750622