https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768671 ITAT MUMBAI held that reopening and reassessment were invalid because approval for issuing notice under Section 148 and for order under Section 148A(d) was obtained from the Principal Commissioner instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner as required by Section 151(ii) once the three-year period fell within TOLA dates. Non-compliance with Section 148A(d) read with Section 151(ii) deprived the AO of jurisdiction; the notice dated 30/07/2022 and consequent reassessment order dated 25/05/2023 were quashed. Decision for the assessee. en-us Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Nov 2025 14:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768671 ITAT MUMBAI held that reopening and reassessment were invalid because approval for issuing notice under Section 148 and for order under Section 148A(d) was obtained from the Principal Commissioner instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner as required by Section 151(ii) once the three-year period fell within TOLA dates. Non-compliance with Section 148A(d) read with Section 151(ii) deprived the AO of jurisdiction; the notice dated 30/07/2022 and consequent reassessment order dated 25/05/2023 were quashed. Decision for the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768671