<?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>2025 (1) TMI 1238 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765174</link>
    <description>An assessment order issued in the name of an entity that ceased to exist due to amalgamation is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside; the loss of legal existence by merger nullifies authority to assess the non existent entity. The court further addressed the scope of appeals under the provision limiting questions to those framed for hearing, holding that a substantial question of law that goes to the root of jurisdiction may be framed even if not raised earlier, because consent cannot confer jurisdiction where it is inherently lacking. The court framed the jurisdictional question and deferred further hearing to allow arguments on that issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2026 14:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=792053" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 1238 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765174</link>
      <description>An assessment order issued in the name of an entity that ceased to exist due to amalgamation is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside; the loss of legal existence by merger nullifies authority to assess the non existent entity. The court further addressed the scope of appeals under the provision limiting questions to those framed for hearing, holding that a substantial question of law that goes to the root of jurisdiction may be framed even if not raised earlier, because consent cannot confer jurisdiction where it is inherently lacking. The court framed the jurisdictional question and deferred further hearing to allow arguments on that issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765174</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>