<?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>s.127 transfer upheld despite ITBA delay; notice u/s 143(2) invalid, s.68 and s.115BBE additions deleted</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93262</link>
    <description>ITAT held that a PCIT order under s.127 effected exclusive jurisdiction transfer to DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai with effect from 09.12.2020; administrative delay in ITBA migration does not defer legal effect. Consequently, the ITO, Ward-4, Tirunelveli&#039;s notice issued u/s 143(2) on 29.06.2021 was without jurisdiction, invalid and liable to be quashed, rendering any resulting assessment order void ab initio. On merits, ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of additions: an addition for alleged undisclosed business income based solely on survey notings was unsupported by corroborative evidence, and an addition u/s 68 read with s.115BBE was incorrect as amounts were opening balances, not credits in the year.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2025 09:01:22 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2025 09:01:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=857798" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>s.127 transfer upheld despite ITBA delay; notice u/s 143(2) invalid, s.68 and s.115BBE additions deleted</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93262</link>
      <description>ITAT held that a PCIT order under s.127 effected exclusive jurisdiction transfer to DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai with effect from 09.12.2020; administrative delay in ITBA migration does not defer legal effect. Consequently, the ITO, Ward-4, Tirunelveli&#039;s notice issued u/s 143(2) on 29.06.2021 was without jurisdiction, invalid and liable to be quashed, rendering any resulting assessment order void ab initio. On merits, ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of additions: an addition for alleged undisclosed business income based solely on survey notings was unsupported by corroborative evidence, and an addition u/s 68 read with s.115BBE was incorrect as amounts were opening balances, not credits in the year.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2025 09:01:22 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93262</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>