<?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 (12) TMI 1833 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468525</link>
    <description>A reassessment notice issued beyond three years required prior sanction from the authority prescribed under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Approval by the Principal Commissioner, instead of the statutorily competent higher authority, was treated as a jurisdictional defect going to the root of the notice. The reassessment notice was therefore held invalid in law, and the consequential reassessment could not survive. The merits of the additions were not examined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 May 2026 21:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=901109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1833 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468525</link>
      <description>A reassessment notice issued beyond three years required prior sanction from the authority prescribed under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Approval by the Principal Commissioner, instead of the statutorily competent higher authority, was treated as a jurisdictional defect going to the root of the notice. The reassessment notice was therefore held invalid in law, and the consequential reassessment could not survive. The merits of the additions were not examined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468525</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>