<?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 (3) TMI 1088 - ITAT RAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767702</link>
    <description>Reassessment proceedings were held void where the notice initiating reassessment was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction, while the assessment was completed by another officer without a valid transfer order or a fresh notice by the competent authority. The absence of a proper jurisdictional foundation meant the statutory precondition for reassessment was not satisfied, and the defect went to the root of the matter. As a result, the reassessment and all consequential proceedings were treated as non est and quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:34:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=808279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1088 - ITAT RAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767702</link>
      <description>Reassessment proceedings were held void where the notice initiating reassessment was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction, while the assessment was completed by another officer without a valid transfer order or a fresh notice by the competent authority. The absence of a proper jurisdictional foundation meant the statutory precondition for reassessment was not satisfied, and the defect went to the root of the matter. As a result, the reassessment and all consequential proceedings were treated as non est and quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>